Featured Entries

Cases of Collateral Consequences

SCSJ staff attorney, Daryl Atkinson speaks to WUNC, The State of Things to talk about experiences with discrimination based on criminal history and efforts to counter this bias. Listen here: http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/Cases_of_Collateral_Consequences.mp3/view#.UDUyEZfVfdg.gmail

New Tool Help People Navigate The Maze of Collateral Consequences

SCSJ staff attorney, Daryl V. Atkinson assists in the creation of a novel one stop portal (C-CAT) http://ccat.sog.unc.edu/ that provides North Carolina citizens a way to assess the full ramifications of their criminal justice involvement. Criminal convictions often lead to legal consequences other than jail, prison, or probation. For example, contact with the criminal justice system can result in felon disenfranchisement, deportation, and the loss of employment and occupational licenses. African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system; as a result, these civil penalties aka “collateral consequences” affect their communities more harshly. Prior to the development of C-CAT collateral consequences were scattered throughout the North Carolina General Statutes, making it impossible, for anyone to master the entire body of collateral consequences law without a centralized resource. C-CAT lifts the veil on these invisible punishments, thereby creating more transparency in this important area of the law. For more information about C-CAT and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions see the following article in Lawyer’s Weekly.

Racial Justice Act

Death penalty opponents and advocates of the state’s Racial Justice Act have embarked on an intense petition drive, letter-writing and email campaign, targeting five Democrats in the state House of Representatives. The goal is to persuade the representatives to sustain the governor’s Thursday veto of the legislature’s overhaul of the Racial Justice Act. The Senate is expected to vote to override on Monday. The House will follow that day or Tuesday with a vote in which at least four of the five conservative Democrats will have to join Republicans, if all members are present, to give them the three-fifths majority to override. Within hours of the governor’s veto, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a civil rights advocacy firm based in Durham with the backing of other state and national civil rights organizations, delivered a petition with 5,000 signatures to policymakers. Their focus was strongly on Rep. William D. Brisson, a Bladen County Democrat; Rep. James W. Crawford Jr., a Granville County Democrat; Rep. Dewey L. Hill, a Brunswick County Democrat; Rep. Bill Owens, a Camden County Democrat, and Rep. Timothy L. Spear, a Washington County Democrat. The North Carolina Council of Churches, an organization long committed to ending the death penalty and an advocate of a moratorium on executions, issued a directive on Friday urging people to contact Brisson, Hill and Owens. Owens has said he would vote to override, and Crawford would not say. The Racial Justice Act, adopted in 2009, allows death row inmates to use statistics when challenging their sentences using racial bias claims. If racial bias played a role in their case, a judge can convert a death sentence to life in prison without opportunity for parole. In April, a Cumberland County judge found that racial bias played a part in the case of Marcus Robinson, the first of more than 150 death row inmates seeking relief under the Racial Justice Act. Then the legislature made sweeping changes to the law this summer, trying to limit the use of statistics. Words for the swing votes In their appeal to the five House Democrats to sustain the governor’s veto, petitioners are urging the lawmakers to consider the findings Cumberland County Judge Gregory Weeks made in the first Racial Justice Act case. The judge found evidence that the jury selection process in capital cases, both statewide and locally, had systematically excluded blacks. “The recent court findings of systematic intentional exclusion of people of color from capital juries, an action that taints and undermines equal justice, were the result of a measured and well-litigated adversarial process,” Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition, said in a statement. “They are fully supported by reliable evidence and deserve respect. In light of these findings, we are particularly troubled by recent efforts to repeal or ‘amend’ the Racial Justice Act, which will prohibit a judge from ever examining similar evidence in future cases. It is deeply wrong to turn a blind eye to the truth of how our criminal justice system has operated in the past.” The Rev. William Barber, head of the state chapter of the NAACP, also had strong words for the five House Democrats. “For a Southern legislature to do what they are doing in the face of proven racial disparities is wrong reprehensible and contrary to the fundamental American principle of equal justice,” Barber said. Barber further noted that all black members of the legislative caucus were against gutting the Racial Justice Act while all those who supported the overhaul were white. Executions on hold There has not been an execution in this state since 2006 when a series of lawsuits filed on behalf of death row inmates created a de facto moratorium. Then all but a few of the 156 death row inmates sought relief from their sentences under the Racial Justice Act. Though it might have been the intent of the legislature to resume executions with this new bill changing the Racial Justice Act, opponents of capital punishment say the practical effect could be just the opposite. “It will just add another layer of lawsuits,” projected Ken Rose, a lawyer at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation based in Durham. Rose said death row inmates who sought relief under the 2009 law likely would challenge any changes that prohibited them from having hearings in their cases. Despite legislative attempts to address that issue by saying the law did not apply to the case of Robinson – the death row inmate whose case was heard first – the legal challenges that might come from other death row inmates excluded from similar hearings could keep the de facto moratorium in place for years as those judges consider the cases. But House Majority Leader Paul “Skip” Stam, a Republican from Apex and key author of the current bill, said Saturday that changing the Racial Justice Act would end up reducing litigation by a few years. He said the Racial Justice Act added about six years to a process that typically lasts right up until execution. Peg Dorer, executive director of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys, agreed. “Extensive litigation is the name of the game with death penalty opponents,” she said in an email Saturday. “When they know that a majority of citizens in North Carolina support a death penalty, their only option is to continue to stall, tangling the system up with litigation.” Staff writer Craig Jarvis contributed. Blythe: 919-836-4948

North Carolinians Called to Stand For Immigrant Justice after Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s SB1070

For those on the ground in the migrants’ rights movement, this week’s Supreme Court decision means that we still have much work to do to achieve true justice for our communities. On Monday morning the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision on Arizona’s SB1070, overturning major portions of the law but upholding the notorious section 2B--which requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest or detain and have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is unlawfully present in the United States. Section 2B-- popularly known as the “Show me your papers” provision --has been widely criticized for mandating racial profiling. The Supreme Court struck down the three other major provisions of SB 1070, which would have made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to not apply for a registration card and carry it at all times (section 3); made it a crime for unauthorized immigrants to apply for, solicit or perform work (section 5C); and authorize law enforcement officials to arrest immigrants without a warrant if they have “probable cause” to believe they have committed an offense that makes them deportable, even if they are lawfully present in the U.S. (section 6). On the one hand, the Court’s decision sends a strong message to states considering copycat legislation, like North Carolina, that the federal government, NOT state governments hold the power to author and enforce immigration law; however, the decision does not address the existing immigration enforcement crisis pursued and implemented by our federal government. These programs are part of an anti-immigrant policy of “attrition through enforcement”, which attempts to make life so hostile and unlivable for immigrants that they opt to self-deport. Federal support and amplification of deportation through Secure Communities and the 287(g) programs have fostered attrition and created an environment in which states like Arizona feel able to take extreme enforcement measures against immigrants. While policy and advocacy groups are rightfully celebrating that three provisions of SB 1070 were struck down and that the ruling leaves open the possibility to overturn section 2B with pending litigation from civil rights organizations, the ruling is not as celebrated by those most directly impacted by these laws. The many consequences of unjust immigration enforcement are raw for those who continue to live in fear of being separated from family members and their communities. They know firsthand the impact of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, which they expect section 2b to amplify, and its resultant deportations. An organizer from the grassroots organization Puente Arizona said to the press Monday afternoon, “We do not call it a victory. People are very upset and confused. They are scared to see what will come up.” Rather, the cause for celebration for migrant communities and their allies in Arizona this week is their ongoing struggle for self determination based on human dignity and human rights. Pro-migrant organizers on the ground in Arizona and across the country have fearlessly stood up to racism and xenophobia with the mantra “We will not comply”. This grassroots movement will remain vigilant as section 2B comes into effect. They will the monitor implementation of the law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who heartily announced to the press shortly after the ruling, “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.” In Arizona, the migrant’s right movement will not stop fighting until SB1070 is repealed and the full rights of immigrants are respected. In North Carolina, this ruling and its aftermath holds particular significance. Members of the General Assembly’s Select Committee on Immigration that met earlier this year said they would wait on the Supreme Court ruling before trying to move forward on any kind of Arizona copycat legislation. Based on this week’s decision, it is extremely unwise of them to pursue it. However, it is also important to recognize that immigrants in North Carolina already face extreme persecution. Secure Communities, a mandatory biometrics program that merges FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases when a person is being booked in a jail, no matter what the allegations against them, has been implemented in all 100 North Carolina counties. Since November 2008, 5,731 immigrants have been deported under the Secure Communities program. North Carolina also has 7 active 287(g) agreements, which enable local police to enforce immigration law. Since 2006, 18,922 immigrants have been identified for removal under 287(g) Memoranda of Understanding. Consequently, undocumented immigrants in North Carolina are subjected to a deportation apparatus with or without a SB1070 copycat. The messages North Carolinians of conscience need to take away from the Arizona experience are first and foremost, to fight back against any policies that erode the civil rights of immigrants in our state and to organize for nothing less than full rights for all. Locally, that will likely mean fighting harder to end Secure Communities and the 287(g) program. This ruling is an opportunity for us to build a stronger, more vibrant movement; to expose what is happening to immigrants in their everyday lives under North Carolina’s attrition tactics and to build bridges with other communities experiencing oppression; and lastly, to prepare our communities for the struggles ahead, making it known that we will not allow bigotry and xenophobia in our state. At this critical moment, it is the responsibility of all North Carolinians of conscience to stand on the right side of history and act in solidarity with targeted communities. We are tasked to provide support to those at the center of the movement with resources, time, and action. As we have learned from the civil rights movement, it’s a long walk to justice but justice will indeed prevail. 1 (http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/sc-stats/nationwide_interop_stats-fy2012-to-date.pdf , pg. 4) 2 (http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/287g-masterstats2010oct31.pdf

Statement by Rebecca Fontaine, Immigrants’ Rights Organizer, on SB1070 Supreme Court Ruling

North Carolinians Called to Stand For Immigrant Justice after Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s SB1070 While policy and advocacy groups are rightfully celebrating that three provisions of SB 1070 were struck down and that the ruling leaves open the possibility to overturn section 2B with pending litigation from civil rights organizations, the ruling is not as celebrated by those most directly impacted by these laws. The many consequences of unjust immigration enforcement are raw for those who continue to live in fear of being separated from family members and their communities. They know firsthand the impact of racial, ethnic and religious profiling, which they expect section 2b to amplify, and its resultant deportations. To read full statement click below https://southerncoalition.org/node/595

Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2010 Census

The Census Bureau released its Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report on May 22, 2012, which provides a measure of accuracy for the 2010 Census. This report includes estimates for undercounts and overcounts broken down by race and ethnicity, and compares these numbers against the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. According to the official press release:

“The 2010 Census undercounted 2.1 percent of the black population, which was not statistically different from a 1.8 percent undercount in 2000. In 2010, 1.5 percent of the Hispanic population was undercounted. In 2000, the estimated undercount of 0.7 percent was not statistically different from zero. The difference between the two censuses was also not statistically significant.”

These findings show a consistent undercounting of minorities throughout the United States “[b]ecause ethnic and racial minorities disproportionately live in hard-to-count circumstances,” according to U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves.

Nationwide estimates for undercounts and overcounts are shown in the table below:

Source: Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Summary of Estimates of Coverage for Persons in the United States http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/g-01.pdf

The full press release can be viewed at the following link: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-95.html

Stand Up to Hate: Vote Against Amendment One Today

Today the Southern Coalition for Social Justice is standing with the LGBTQ community and fair minded North Carolinians in asking all North Carolina voters to stand up to hate by voting AGAINST Amendment One. Amendment One, which seeks to define marriage as a union between one woman and one man would: • take domestic partnership benefits from all unmarried people • take health benefits from kids of all unmarried people, and • restrict the rights of domestic violence survivors who are being hurt by people they are not married to This amendment would have broad impacts on many North Carolinians, but it explicitly seeks to attack LGBTQ community members. In North Carolina, same sex marriage is not legal, thus at its core this amendment seeks to further alienate LGBTQ people from our communities. As a social justice organization, we stand for the equal rights and humanity of all persons. Please, go to the polls today to vote NO on Amendment One and make sure your friends and family know why you are against this amendment. We thank everyone who has been involved in this important human rights struggle. For more information about Amendment One see: http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/home http://southernersonnewground.org/ http://www.naacpnc.org/

DOJ Objects to Change in Size and Method of Election of Pitt County School Board

On Monday, the United States Department of Justice objected to a proposed reduction in the size and method of election of the Pitt County Board of Education. The changes were the result of a local bill passed by the General Assembly last year. On behalf of the North Carolina State Conference of NAACP Branches, SCSJ filed a comment letter with DOJ, explaining how the proposed change would be retrogressive for black voters in the county. DOJ agreed that the change would make black voters worse off, and issued an objection letter on April 30. Attached are the comment letter filed by SCSJ and the DOJ Objection Letter.

Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association and NC NAACP Score an Environmental Justice Victory in the NC Court of Appeals

Yesterday, a 3-judge panel on the North Carolina Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a trial court decision in Waste Industries v. NC upholding the constitutionality of a state law that limits the size and location of new large landfills built in the state. The Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association and the NC NAACP had intervened in the litigation to defend the law, passed in 2007, because large landfills are often sited in low-income, minority communities. The NAACP had pushed the General Assembly to consider environmental justice when dealing with new landfills. The decision from the Court of Appeals expressly recognized the environmental justice protections provided by the challenged statutes. Attached is the May 1 opinion from the Court of Appeals.

SCSJ Redistricting Arguments heard in Florida Supreme Court

Last Friday SCSJ staff attorney, Allison Riggs, represented the Florida NAACP in asking the Supreme Court to declare the new Senate redistricting plan constitutionally invalid. She argued that in invalidating the first Senate plan earlier this year, the Florida Supreme Court had not factored in the effects of racially polarized voting in determining whether a district with a dramatically reduced black voting age population, will still allow black voters to elect the candidates of their choice. The redrawn Senate plan would have significant negative effects on minority voters in Northeast Florida. The position of the NAACP is that the evidence before the Court indicated that there still is, especially in northeast Florida, a substantial amount of racially polarized voting, and that black voters cannot rely on white crossover voters. She showed how redrawn Senate districts in which the BVAP has been dramatically lowered, those districts violate the state constitutional prohibition on diminishing the ability of minority voters to elect the candidates of their choice. It is expected that a decision will be made by next Friday. To read some of the press coverage see: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/18/2760870/supreme-court-suggests-it-will.html http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-04-20/story/first-coasts-black-vote-spotlight-supreme-court-considers-redrawn

Department of Justice Issues an Objection to Redistricting Plans in Greene County

Last week community members in Greene County, Georgia succeeded in convincing the Department of Justice to issue an objection to the County’s proposed redistricting plans. Using its authority under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Department prevented the implementation of new election districts that would have prevented black voters in the county from being able to elect candidates of their choice. In the objection letter dated April 13th, 2012, the Assistant Attorney General writes, “The elimination of both ability-to-elect districts was unnecessary and avoidable. Although there has been a decrease in the black share of the county’s population over the past ten years, the ability to draw at least one black ability-to-elect district still existed.” This victory was a result of the efforts of the local NAACP chapter, and African American leaders who paid close attention to the redistricting process, and then organized to ensure their voices were heard. SCSJ board member, Jerry Wilson, who lives in Greene County, helped to ensure that the local group got the assistance they needed. . He says that SCSJ played an important support role. Community members attended meetings, engaged county commissioners and school board members opposed to the proposed changes, drew alternative maps demonstrating it was possible to maintain an ability-to elect district for Black voters, and wrote letters talking about how they would be affected by the changes. The objection is significant for Black Belt counties like this one in Georgia. Over 60% of the county formerly was African American, before an influx of white retirees, people moving out of Atlanta, and investors began to settle in the area and developed major resorts around Lake Oconee. According the 2010 census, the county is now only 38.4% African American. Without this action by the Department of Justice, black voters in the county would have lost their voice in local government.