Uncategorized

SCSJ Secures Legal Victory for Heirs' Property Preservation

Thanks to efforts led by Southern Coalition for Social Justice families with heirs' property can sleep a little more soundly this evening. On January 21, 2011, the North Carolina State Bar Council approved 2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 8. Most significantly, this ethics opinion limits the circumstances in which an attorney for property developers can also serve as a commissioner selling the land in question. This clear conflict of interest can result in one attorney driving a difficult to understand process that results in the loss of property that has been in a family for centuries. “Partition actions are still a danger to families with heirs’ property, which is particularly common in rural African-American families. And, while it cannot solve all problems relating to partition actions, 2009 FEO 8 makes these proceedings a little more equitable for those trying to hang out to their ancestral lands,” said SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook. Picture: The Freeman family stands on Freeman Beach, a historically black-owned beachfront property located at the north end of Carolina Beach that was the only beach accessible to African Americans in the South during Jim Crow years. SCSJ represents Freeman family heirs in preserving the land from a takeover by a developer.

SCSJ in the Supreme Court

SCSJ has been lead counsel representing the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches in litigation challenging the discriminatory redistricting plans enacted by the Texas state legislature. Because of Texas’ failure to obtain federal approval of their redistricting plans, a federal court in San Antonio drew interim plans to govern the 2012 elections. Those interim plans were constructed with the input of all parties, including the NAACP. Unlike the redistricting plans enacted by the state, the interim plans were fair to minority voters, preserving the gains made by such voters and drawing districts that recognized the incredible minority population growth over the last decade. Texas appealed those interim plans to the United States Supreme Court. SCSJ, on behalf of the NAACP, briefed the issues extensively for the Supreme Court, helped prepare the attorney who argued the case for all plaintiffs, and attended the Supreme Court argument on Monday, January 9th. SCSJ was encouraged to see many Justices recognize that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act dictates that unprecleared redistricting plans may not be implemented. A decision from Supreme Court will likely be delivered soon. The Supreme Court cases were consolidated under Perry v. Perez, No. 11-713, 11-714, and 11-715.

Suit Challenges Diversity Vote

Suit Challenges Diversity Vote BY T. KEUNG HUI AND THOMAS GOLDSMITH - Staff Writers RALEIGH -- In the first legal challenge for the Wake County school board majority and its vow to remake North Carolina's largest school district, opponents filed a lawsuit Thursday arguing that two votes against the diversity policy should be tossed out because state law was violated. The lawsuit, filed in Wake County Superior Court, contends that the school board majority has stifled public participation by deliberately refusing to move recent board meetings to larger venues despite knowing there would be large crowds in attendance. This refusal violated the state's Open Public Meetings Law , the lawsuit says, so votes taken March 23 and Tuesday to ditch the diversity policy and replace it with a student assignment policy canted toward neighborhood schools should be declared void. Some of the civil rights groups providing legal services have also criticized ending efforts to balance the percentage of low-income students at individual schools to bolster overall academic achievement. Several of the plaintiffs are parents and students, many from magnet schools, who have spoken out against changing the diversity policy. "Whether or not you support the diversity plan, the school board wasn't doing what it was doing the way it was supposed to be doing it," said Andrew Snee, 15, a Broughton High School freshman and one of the plaintiffs. School board Chairman Ron Margiotta has toldsupporters they should expect a number of lawsuits from opponents. On Thursday, he said this lawsuit was merely a tactic by opponents to stop the board majority from fulfilling its campaign promises. "I think we bent over backwards to allow people to speak," Margiotta said. "If they want to just bring us into court, all this will do is take more money from the children of this county. Accept the wishes of the people of this county." A court hearing has been scheduled for 2 p.m. Wednesday in Courtroom 5B in the Wake County Courthouse in downtown Raleigh. On March 23, the board voted 5-4 in favor of a resolution calling for the creation of community-based schools and discontinuation of socioeconomic diversity. On Tuesday, the board gave initial approval by a 4-3 vote to a revised student assignment policy that fleshes out the previous resolution. Early warning But the threat of legal action has been in the air since before the new board majority took office Dec. 1 after four Republican-backed candidates swept last fall's election. The Rev. William Barber, state president of the NAACP, warned at the time that if Wake County's new approach to assigning students wound up resegregating schools, the system could be subject to a lawsuit based on the state constitution's stipulation that all children are guaranteed a sound basic education. Margiotta cited the threatened NAACP suit against Wake as a justification for hiring Republican lawyer Tom Farr as interim special counsel. Margiotta said the board's majority members wanted to keep their options open in case they chose not to call on longtime board attorneys Tharrington Smith, whose founding partner Wade Smith is a former state Democratic Party chairman. The state NAACP is among the groups providing attorneys in the lawsuit. Other groups in the case include the ACLU of North Carolina, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, UNC Center for Civil Rights, and the N.C. Justice Center. Orage Quarles III, publisher of The News & Observer, is a member of the board of directors of the N.C. Justice Center. The crowds at board meetings have sharply increased since December, escalating the often rancorous public opposition to the ruling majority. Starting with the March 23 meeting, the school system began requiring tickets for seats in the boardroom. Margiotta had cited concerns raised by the fire marshal for the change. But the lawsuit contends that the board created the ticket policy and chose not to move any of the meetings to a larger venue because it felt that "full public access" might "threaten their narrow majority and jeopardize" their plans. "They felt that hearing from so many people was slowing down the process and slowing down what they wanted to get done," said Woody Barlow, 17, an Enloe High School junior and one of the plaintiffs. The suit notes how the school board turned down the last-minute March 23 offer from The News & Observer and Capitol Broadcasting to pay for relocating the meeting to the Progress Energy Center for the Performing Arts in downtown Raleigh. "This is about democracy and the way we make decisions in this country," said Swain Wood, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. The crowd at the March 23 meeting overflowed into the hallway and outside the building. Angry students began chanting, leading to the arrests of three protesters, none of whom are current Wake students. Tedesco shrugs School board member John Tedesco, a member of the majority, called the case a "nuisance complaint." Even if the board loses the case, he said the only thing that will happen is they'll reapprove the changes again. "All they're doing is taking money out of the classroom to pay for their lawsuit," Tedesco said. "It won't change the vote."

Carrboro to revisit anti-lingering

From The Carrboro Citizen covers the anti-loitering ordinance. A letter sent by SCSJ and several other organizations criticizes the ordinance for its unconstitutionality. The Carrboro…

Bye-bye OLF

Published by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald on November 21, 2013
It’s over.
After several years with a cloud of uncertainty in regard to a potential Navy…

Expect landfill lawsuit, city told

By AMANDA LEHMERT Staff Writer GREENSBORO — An attorney working for northeast Greensboro residents warned the city on Tuesday that expanding the White Street Landfill would hurt communities of color — opening the city to legal challenges that could prevent it from getting landfill permits. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a Durham-based nonprofit, is providing free assistance to Citizens for Environmental and Social Justice, a group of residents who oppose reopening the landfill to household trash. In 2006, the city stopped sending household trash to White Street, although it still is permitted to do so. Residents could challenge current or future landfill permits under a law that allows the state to deny permits that have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income communities, Chris Brook, a staff attorney for the coalition, wrote to City Manager Rashad Young and City Council members. Brook already has submitted a letter to the N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, opposing the city’s request to renew its current permit to bury household and other trash at White Street for five years. That permit is pending state approval. Young said the city is reviewing the law mentioned by Brook to see how it might affect the city’s ability to get permits. The City Council is considering three proposals that would expand the landfill. Brook said the council has not fully considered health, environmental or economic consequences. “Reopening White Street to municipal solid waste and potentially expanding it would have negative public health and environmental consequences without addressing Greensboro’s need for a long-term, fiscally responsible waste management plan,” Brook wrote. The northeast Greensboro citizens group approached the coalition earlier this year for help on the landfill. In the letter, Brook said 7,550 residents live within a one-mile radius of White Street — and about 85 percent of those residents are African American or Hispanic, citing 2010 census figures. Brook said that could be the basis for a civil rights complaint or a landfill permit challenge. The solid waste law says the state “shall deny” a permit if it has a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income communities. Brook’s letter also argued that a White Street expansion could “crowd out” business opportunities for the area. That possible economic impact — an issue that other Greensboro residents have raised — is something Young said is difficult to calculate. Brook also said cost savings from using the landfill would be short-term. The only way White Street could produce long-term savings is if the city expanded it beyond the current dumping space. “The life of the landfill is short. This is not a good option,” said Goldie Wells, a former City Council member who has been leading the anti-White Street charge. Brook accuses the City Council of plowing forward with plans to expand White Street before the health consequences are fully explored. The state requires the city to test groundwater at the landfill, capture the gas that comes out of it and undergo regular inspections. “We’re meeting the requirements that the state has put before us,” City Field Operations Director Dale Wyrick said. “I am not trying to minimize the concerns because there are community concerns, but we are doing our due diligence."

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.