2011

Featured Entries

NC Redistricting Hearing to Focus on Speed of Case

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Advocacy groups, Democratic elected officials and voters challenging North Carolina's new redistricting plans want rulings on their legality by mid-February, but the state's lawyers argue a "rush to judgment" is unreasonable and the judicial branch is reluctant to delay the 2012 elections. Attorneys on both sides of a pair of lawsuits filed a month ago seeking to block new Republican-penned legislative and congressional districts from taking effect have filed motions and responses in recent days. While they largely agree on consolidating the two cases into one, the attorneys are at odds over how fast the matter should be considered by a special three-judge panel. Judges on the panel announced Monday they would hear arguments Dec. 16 on the fast-track timeline and consolidation. One lawsuit filed Nov. 3 by dozens of voters and Democratic legislators and another filed the next day by civil rights and election watchdog groups argue the maps originally approved in July are illegal for generally the same reasons. The lawsuits contend the district lines illegally cluster black voters to decrease their electoral power, cross too many county boundaries and split too many precincts, causing chaos among voters and a re-segregation of communities. The GOP lawmakers who drew the maps have said they comply with state and federal rules and legal precedent. They point to U.S. Department of Justice attorneys declining to challenge the boundaries on the basis of certain racial discrimination grounds as proof the boundaries are lawful. The cases are important because the GOP-drawn maps, if approved, could assist the party in winning as many as four additional congressional seats this decade and retaining their new majorities in the state House and Senate. Eddie Speas, a Raleigh lawyer representing voters and elected officials who filed one lawsuit, offered a litigation calendar to the judges that would lead to a trial on the combined lawsuits in early February. The candidate filing period begins Feb. 13. Should a court strike down the maps later, new maps would be drawn by the Legislature or the courts. It could require a new filing period based on new boundaries and delay of the scheduled May 8 primary. Redistricting litigation delayed the 2002 and 2004 primaries. "The relief sought by the plaintiffs in this action, if granted, will substantially affect the 2012 elections process," Speas wrote in his Nov. 18 motion. A similar motion was filed by lawyers suing in the second redistricting case. "Disruption and uncertainty will be minimized if this matter can be tried and decided by this Court before the opening of the filing period," he added. The state Attorney General's Office, defending the maps on behalf of legislative leaders and the state, offered its own plan in which there would be at least four months to collect evidence so it could respond to several hundred numbered allegations and dozens of named plaintiffs. The lawsuits, filed more than three months after the Legislature initially completed its work, could have been filed earlier, Special Deputy Attorney General Alex Peters wrote. The scheduling "request is unprecedented, unreasonable on its face and would force the court to rush to judgment regarding the constitutionality of redistricting plans duly adopted by the General Assembly and affecting all North Carolinians," Peters wrote in a Nov. 29 response opposing the accelerated calendar. Peters said the most recent state Supreme Court ruling involving redistricting showed the justices are wary about disrupting the electoral process. The justices declined in August 2007 to direct the General Assembly to correct a few Wilmington-area districts before the May 2008 primary, he wrote. In a response filed late last week, Speas said his timeline is not unreasonable and Peters' arguments forget that state courts blocked the 2002 primary election from going forward when the statewide legislative maps were challenged, as is being done now. Those maps were declared unconstitutional. Speas, a former general counsel to Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue, worked on behalf of the state in defending maps a decade ago with the state Attorney General's Office. Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/05/1692070/nc-redistricting-hearing-to-focus.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz1fm69twpf

Early agreements on Florida redistricting favor incumbents

TALLAHASSEE - Legislators have reached their first deal in the once-a-decade redistricting battle: Senators will draw Senate maps and House members will draw House maps. It sounds like an obvious agreement - each chamber knows its own territory better than the other - but, in practice, it means that House and Senate leaders both have a better chance of making incumbents happy. The first proposal for Senate boundaries is a good example. It's modeled after a redistricting map submitted by the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, packs Democrats into districts to strengthen neighboring Republicans seats and gives incumbents on both sides of the aisle a good shot at re-election, a Times/Herald analysis shows. From the Panhandle to Miami, there have been few complaints from Senate Democrats or Republicans about the proposed map. The only trouble spots are a handful of districts that could provoke a court challenge because they might not comply with requirements of the new Fair District amendments to the Florida Constitution. The Senate redistricting committee will discuss the map today, while the House plans to take up the NAACP plan in a workshop Thursday. Sen. Don Gaetz, the Senate redistricting chairman and incoming president of the Senate, "has piloted the ship very, very well,'' said Sen. Jack Latvala, a Clearwater Republican whose district is shifted from southern Pinellas County northward under the Senate plan. Both Gaetz and Latvala defended the Senate map as being in keeping with an agreement made by Republicans and Democrats last month to give top priority to the creation of minority seats. The Senate reviewed the maps submitted by the Florida State Conference of the NAACP and then drew maps based on that plan's minority districts. But the Democratic Party and proponents of the constitutional amendments that impose new redistricting standards say the maps protect incumbents, favor the party in power and permanently disadvantage minority voters who may not be in the protected minority seats - the opposite, they say, of what the amendments intended. "These districts are packed,'' said Rod Smith, chairman of the Florida Democratic Party. "They've created enclaves of a disproportionate number of Democrats surrounded by largely Republican, or much more bleached, districts on either side." For example, the Senate map includes only one district - out of 40 total districts - with more than 50 percent Republicans and the NAACP map includes only two. But there are eight districts with more than 50 percent Democrats on each map. Neither map has districts with fewer than about 26 percent registered Democrats, but some have as few as 11 percent registered Republicans in districts packed with Democrats. One packed Democrat district, No. 33 in Miami, would be 69 percent Democratic. The Senate map also mirrors much of the NAACP's proposal for dealing with minority districts. The NAACP's map was submitted Nov. 3 by Timothy Stallman, a demographer with the North Carolina-based Southern Coalition for Social Justice. In an email to Senate staff two days later, NAACP president Adora Obi Nweze asked that Stallman's name be removed from the map and the name of the NAACP be substituted instead. Repeated efforts to reach Nweze were unsuccessful. According to the NAACP and Senate maps, six of the eight districts that pack Democrats are so-called minority-majority seats. Both maps also have eight districts with between 40 and 49 percent Democrats. The Senate map has 21 districts that are between 30 and 39 percent Democrat, while the NAACP map has 22 districts with that percentage of Democrats. But Gaetz defends the maps as necessary to adhere to the federal Voting Rights Act, which require that minority voting strength be protected. Smith says the Senate map "permanently gerrymanders" minorities and disenfranchises those who are not in the selected seats. "This is going to court,'' Smith predicted. Here are some of the hot spots: . Republican Sen. Joe Negron's Stuart-based district would stretch along the coast east of Interstate 95, slicing through Martin and St. Lucie counties, while a Polk County-based seat, District 17, would reach over to pick up the western edges of those counties. . Polk County and the city of Lakeland are chopped apart to include a winding district that includes the home territory of former state Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, who is hoping to replace Sen. Mike Bennett, a clear disadvantage to Galvano's expected opponent, former state Sen. Pat Neal. The map consumes the current district held by Sen. Thad Altman, R-Viera, and pushes him into a district being vacated by Senate President Mike Haridopolos. . Most of Altman's former district would become the new District 24, which would wind from southern Orange County through Osceola and Polk counties and include a 50.5 percent Hispanic population. It is being eyed by state Rep. Darren Soto, an Orlando Democrat. . To make room for a proposed District 24, proposed District 19 must divide the city of Orlando to take in the home territory of Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando. . In Jacksonville, the map appears to boost the candidacy of former state Rep. Aaron Bean, who is seeking to replace Republican Sen. Steve Wise in the Senate. . State Rep. Denise Grimsley, R-Sebring, would be the beneficiary of the new District 17. Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@MiamiHerald.com and on Twitter @MaryEllenKlas.

Victory for the NAACP in Texas Redistricting Case

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice has been representing the Texas State Conference of Branches of the NAACP in ongoing litigation over Texas’s statewide redistricting plans. On Friday, November 25, a three-judge panel in Texas ordered the implementation of a court-drawn interim plan for Congressional elections in 2012. This plan corrects almost all of the major problems that the NAACP identified in the state’s enacted plan. In the court-drawn plan, Congressional Districts 9, 18, and 30—districts currently electing the candidates of choice of African-American voters—are not weakened, as they were in the state’s enacted plan. The court-drawn plan respects the cores of the district and does not split significant communities of interest, as the state plan did. The court’s drawing of these districts in a way that respects the integrity of the districts and complies with the Voting Rights Act makes even clearer the discriminatory intent that infected the drawing of minority districts in the state’s plan. In the state’s enacted plan, Texas had purposefully destroyed a Congressional District 25, a multi-ethnic coalition district based in Austin. The state’s plan carved up East Austin, a historically significant African American community that had always been represented by a single representative, into multiple districts, in order to dilute the voting strength of African American voters in that area. The court’s plan retained the core of CD 25, and kept East Austin intact. Finally, the court-drawn plan creates a new African-American opportunity district in Tarrant County, in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex area. After the 2010 Census, Texas gained 4 Congressional representatives because of population growth of the last decade—population growth that was almost entirely from increases in Latino and African-American population. Despite this fact, the congressional plan that Texas drew created no new African-American opportunity districts and no net increase in Latino opportunity districts. Congressional District 33 is majority-minority, with African-Americans constituting a strong plurality of the citizen voting age population. The drawing of Congressional District 33 is fair and complies with the Voting Rights Act, and will enable the minority community in the Dallas-Fort Worth region to elect a candidate of their choice.

Anti-lingering ordinance rescinded in Carrboro

The Carrboro Board of Alderman voted unanimously to end the town’s anti-lingering ordinance Tuesday, ending a four-year old rule that restricting anyone from standing or sitting at the corner of Jones Ferry and Davie roads between 11 a.m. and 5 a.m. The ordinance, passed in 2007, applied to the corner where Latino day laborers congregate to seek work. Neighbors complained that men, most who were not day laborers, would hang out there, drink and create trash. Chris Brook, a staff attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, who helped campaign to end the ordinance and challenge its legality, called it “a request for dignity” from day laborers. “Folks who were impacted by this ordinance had their voice heard,” he said. “Their representatives heard them and responded. It’s always exciting to see democracy work in the way it should.” Workers addressed the board directly and told them the ordinance made it even more challenging to find work in a down economy. “Many of them, if they are able to get a job three times a week, that will be a successful week,” said Rafael Gallegos, associate director at the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Human Rights Center, an advocate for workers who helped translate their speeches to the board. “Today we have the opportunity to provide much needed assistance to those who at the bottom of the economic and social ladder.” Alderman-elect Michelle Johnson, who said during the campaign that she opposed the ordinance, also implored the board to act. “For a community that’s focused on progressive thinking and action, we must do better,” she said. Aldermen who had supported the ordinance in 2007, mainly because of reports of women being sexually harassed as they walked by the corner, supported rescinding it on the condition that the town both consider funding a community resource person to help workers on the corner and that the town look at strengthening its anti-harassment speech rules and make lewd speech directed a women hate speech. They also want to find space for a day laborer center. “I’ve always felt that this ordinance was not a complete solution to the problem,” Mayor Mark Chilton said. “I think the best solution is going to be to have at some level a more formal day labor market. … This board is prepared at last to put some money into making that happen.” Carrboro resident Steve Dear, executive director of People of Faith Against the Death Penalty, ate his lunch at the corner, in violation of the ordinance, for almost a month to highlight the injustice of the rule. No one came by to stop him, which he said showed that the ordinance was being unevenly enforced. “The lesson to take away from this experience is that good, nonviolent old-fashioned community organizing works wonders,” Dear said. “I’m just grateful that I was able to participate in the coalition of all these people.” Alderman Joal Hall Broun, who will complete her service next month, said end of the ordinance creates a new challenge. “Next year, about January 2013, I'm going to ask the question has the quality of life for the neighborhood adjacent to this corner improved or decreased, and I want everybody who is in this room, if they are living, to come back and respond to that,” she said.

CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN UNANIMOUSLY RESCIND ANTI-LOITERING ORDINANCE

The Carrboro Board of Aldermen unanimously rescinded the town's anti-loitering ordinance, which had previously made it a misdemeanor for any person to "stand, sit, recline, linger, or otherwise remain" on the corner of Jones Ferry and Davie Roads between 11AM and 5AM. This corner is the gathering place for predominantly Latino day laborers to find employment in Carrboro. The ordinance's rescission culminates a four month campaign against the ordinance led by SCSJ, beginning with a letter from SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook highlighting the ordinance's unconstitutionality continuing through a press conference noting how the ordinance made it harder for day laborers to find work and ultimately leading to the unanimous vote. Ordinance opponents jammed Carrboro Town Hall Tuesday evening with speaker after speaker underlining how the ordinance was inconsistent with Carrboro's worker and immigrant friendly reputation. Amongst these speakers were three Latino day laborers who had lost work opportunities during the four years the ordinance was in place. "I respect the community. I respect the police. All I want is to work," said day laborer Santiago Hernandez. Town Hall erupted in applause at the close of the Board's vote to rescind. "Carrboro residents, more than 150 of whom signed a letter to the Board of Aldermen calling for the ordinance's repeal, made their voices heard loud and clear on this issue," said SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook. "Its repeal is a victory for the dignity of individuals simply seeking to put food on their families' tables. We applaud the Board for rescinding this ordinance and hope it is the first step in bringing Carrboro together to collaboratively and creatively address the challenges facing day laborers in our community." In addition to the more than 150 Carrboro residents signing onto the letter to Board of Aldermen, the effort to rescind the ordinance mobilized an unprecedented number of groups in community including SCSJ, the UNC Center for Civil Rights, the UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, the Carolina Law Immigration/Human Rights Policy Clinic, the Carolina Law Civil Clinic, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro branch of the NAACP, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Human Rights Center, the ACLU of North Carolina, the North Carolina Justice Center, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and the N.C. Immigrant Rights Project.

NCCU Panel Discussion on Environmental Justice

SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook spoke November 8 at an NC Central panel discussion on environmental justice. Addressing the Central Law Black Law Student Association, Environmental Law Society, and Constitutional Law and Civil Rights Society, Brook generally outlined the origins of the environmental justice movement in Warren County, North Carolina. He also spoke of SCSJ's recent successes in obtaining a benefits package for the New Hill community, which struggled against the placement of a sewage treatment plant in their community, as well as stopping Greensboro's efforts to re-open the White Street Landfill in predominantly African-American Northeast Greensboro. "Too often environmental impacts are placed in communities of color," said Brook. "This was a great opportunity to make the scope of these ongoing challenges known."

D.C. Court Denies Texas’ Request for Quick Approval of State Redistricting Plans

This morning, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. denied a request by Texas for approval of the State's congressional, Texas House and Texas Senate redistricting plans without conducting a trial to determine whether these plans were drawn with the intent or effect of diminishing the ability of minority voters to elect the candidates of their choice. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice, on behalf of the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches and in conjunction with the Texas Legislative Black Caucus and the League of United Latin American Citizens, offered briefing and oral argument to the court on November 2, 2011, urging the court not to approve the redistricting plans because the plans are unfair to Black and Latino voters. Because of the Court’s ruling, the state’s enacted redistricting plans for Congress, State House, and State Senate cannot be used for the 2012 elections. A federal district court in San Antonio will now draw interim redistricting plans for 2012 elections. The court in San Antonio has already conducted hearings on those interim plans, in which SCSJ presented information to the court on how to draw plans that would be fair to minority voters.

Redistricting Lawsuit Filed

Today SCSJ filed a lawsuit on behalf of four statewide organizations and 27 individual voters, challenging the newly enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina State House, State Senate and U.S. Congress. We allege that all three plans “are an intentional and cynical use of race that exceeds what is required to ensure fairness to previously disenfranchised racial minority voters.” In addition to violating the equal protection rights of North Carolina voters on the basis of race, the maps also unfairly create two classes of voters in the state. One class is those who live in split precincts and who will experience delays, confusion and a heightened risk of receiving the wrong ballot. Approximately two million voting age adults in the state (27% of the total voting age population) live in a split precinct. The other class is those voters who do not live in a split precinct and who will not face these problems. African-American voting age adults are 50% more likely than whites to live in a split precinct. The organizational plaintiffs are the North Carolina NAACP, Democracy North Carolina, the North Carolina League of Women Voters and the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute. We seek to overturn the legislature’s unconstitutional packing of black voters. The Complaint is attached below. For a musical explanation of what this case is about, check out this video from ProPublica: http://www.propublica.org/article/video-the-redistricting-song.

Wills' Clinic Held on October, 21-23, 2011 in Edgecombe County

SCSJ conducted its fifth wills’ clinic in Tarboro, North Carolina, as part of its efforts to prevent a leading cause of land loss in the South: heirs’ property passing without a will. During the October 21-23 clinic, 20 Edgecombe County residents had 55 end of life documents made free of charge. Many thanks to everyone who made the service possible: SCSJ coordinating attorney Chris Brook, the office of the Edgecombe County Agricultural Extension, and the ten law student volunteers from Carolina and Campbell Law. SCSJ will conduct its next wills’ clinic in Edgecombe County the weekend of February 17-19. www.southerncoalition.org/documents/willsclinicphoto_0.jpg

Anti-Loitering Ordinance Press Conference

At 11AM on October 18, 2011 three dozen Carrboro residents gathered at the corner of Davie and Jones Ferry Roads in violation of the town’s anti-loitering ordinance. The ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to "stand, sit, recline, linger, or otherwise remain" on this corner "between the hours of 11 a.m. and 5 a.m." Day laborers impacted by the ordinance, attorneys underlining its unconstitutionality, and residents who believe the ordinance is contrary to Carrboro’s welcome, progressive reputation all called for its immediate repeal. “This is one of the only venues where we can provide for our families,” day laborer Angel Martinez told the crowd. “Once we are asked to leave, there’s nowhere else we can go.” SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook opened the press conference by reading a letter signed by 115 Carrboro residents to the Board of Alderman highlighting that the ordinance "violates the civil and human rights of any person who would otherwise lawfully be present at the intersection." Prior to its start, Carrboro announced they would not seek to enforce the ordinance to disrupt the press conference. Brook highlighted the problematic nature of this selective enforcement noting, “Our First Amendment rights are not being obstructed today, but day laborers’ rights are infringed upon every day.” For more on this press conference please visit: http://www.indyweek.com/triangulator/archives/2011/10/25/group-calls-for-end-to-carrboros-anti-lingering-ordinance

Protest To Challenge Carrboro Loitering Law

From The Raleigh News & Observer covers the press conference challenging Carrboro’s anti-loitering ordinance in Carrboro, which makes it harder for day laborers to find…

A blueprint for future waste disposal

The following op-ed appeared in the Greensboro News-Record on Sunday. It was written by SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook, who represented numerous clients in a lawsuit against the city over the Council's attempt to re-open the White Street Landfill to municipal solid waste. SCSJ also intervened in a case involving the company selected by the council. On July 17, 2001, the Greensboro City Council passed a resolution barring further expansion of the White Street Landfill and sought to chart a course to a waste-disposal alternative. More than 10 years later — and following a divisive effort to reopen the landfill that saw three requests for proposals put forward and then abandoned; landfill opponents and supporters suing the city; and an attempt by council members to recuse a fellow member from voting on a landfill contract — it may seem a solution to Greensboro’s garbage problem is further away than ever. That doesn’t have to be so. While it was painful, the recent White Street discussion underlined the city’s three core waste-disposal values, which can serve as a guide to an equitable, sustainable and fiscally responsible long-term solution. First, the White Street Landfill must remain closed to municipal solid waste. Greensboro made a promise to its residents in 2001 that White Street would not be expanded and the city would transition the vast majority of its waste to another site. In 2006 this promise became reality. Elderly couples used to waking to the hum of garbage trucks lined up outside their windows slept a little better. Families considering moving elsewhere chose to stay in Greensboro. And first-time homebuyers purchased houses near the landfill based on the assurance that White Street was closed for good. These Greensboro residents have relied upon the word of their city and deserve to have their faith and loyalty rewarded. Second, Greensboro should dispose of its waste in a manner that minimizes health, economic and environmental impacts. There is no perfect place for a landfill; it will upset someone wherever it goes. However, some locations are better than others. For example, 7,548 Greensboro residents live within a mile radius of the White Street facility, a number sure to increase as the eastern portion of the city continues to grow. By contrast, Greensboro currently ships its garbage to the Uwharrie Regional Landfill. Only approximately 100 people live within a mile radius of that facility. The closest town is Troy, population 3,430, whose downtown is five miles from the landfill. This is not necessarily to advocate that Greensboro continue to use Uwharrie, but instead an illustration of how thoughtful siting can minimize impacts. Third, Greensboro policymakers should select a fiscally responsible waste-disposal option. The conservative, four-person City Council faction that drove the recent White Street discussion was right that cost is an issue, or, as Councilman Danny Thompson succinctly summarized, “It’s dollars and cents.” Their first mistake was treating cost as the only issue. Their second mistake was trumpeting short-term savings, while failing to consider the long-term fiscal implications of reopening a landfill only four miles from downtown Greensboro. Driving a hard bargain with Greensboro taxpayer dollars is an imperative going forward, but it must be placed in the context of the city’s responsibilities to its residents and the need to foster economic growth for future generations. There are potential solutions on the horizon that could allow Greensboro to honor the three core values underlined by the recent White Street debate. Republic Services has identified $3.5 million in potential annual savings through continued use of the Uwharrie Regional Landfill. Nearby Randolph County has expressed interest in hosting a regional landfill, which has the potential to minimize impacts. While it is too early to tell if these proposals will pan out, it is not too early for voters to do their due diligence on City Council candidates to ensure they will pursue equitable, sustainable and fiscally responsible solutions. Without officeholders squarely focused on long-term answers, Greensboro could be having this same conversation in 2021.