Featured Entries

222 Voters in May Primary Received Wrong Ballot in NC

Today Plaintiffs in the North Carolina statewide redistricting case filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to hold that North Carolina's House, Senate and Congressional redistricting plans are unconstitutional. As part of the research for that motion, plaintiffs' found that 2056 voters in the state had been assigned to the wrong district in a sampling of 6 of North Carolina's 100 Counties. 715 of those voters actually voted in the primary and 222 of them received the wrong ballot. Plaintiffs are asking for a hearing in mid-November. Any change in the maps won't take effect until the 2014 elections, but the wrongly assigned voters could be corrected in time for the November 2012 general election. Attached below are the Motion and a one-page summary of the filings.

Every Vote Matters

When Patty Almond ran for Mayor of the town of Mt. Gilead in November, 2011, she lost by just two votes. However, in that election at least four African-American voters were improperly denied the right to vote when poll officials erroneously told them they did not live within the town boundaries. Even though they had voted in numerous previous city elections, this time they were turned away without a ballot and told to go to city hall to sort things out. Humiliated and discouraged, they returned home without being able to cast their votes. SCSJ’s staff attorney Clare Barnett represented Patty Almond in an election protest. After an appeal to Superior Court, the North Carolina State Board of Elections voted unanimously on September 4th to order a new election for the office of Mayor of Mt. Gilead. The voters improperly denied the right to vote in 2011 will be allowed to cast their votes in the new election. Mt. Gilead, in Montgomery County, has a total population of 1,181, of whom 56% are Black.

DC Federal Court rules that Texas’ statewide redistricting maps violate the Voting Rights Act.

SCSJ and the Texas State NAACP have scored a huge win: a panel of judges in D.C. rejected all three of Texas’ statewide redistricting maps as violating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The DC Court found that the Texas Congressional redistricting plan would have a discriminatory and retrogressive effect on minority voters. It also found that that the plan was motivated by discriminatory intent, based largely on evidence presented by SCSJ and the NAACP on how the state intentionally carved up the districts of the three black members of Congress from Texas so as to undermine the effectiveness of those districts. That finding of intentional discrimination may aid advocacy groups in defending Section 5 as a necessary voting rights tool. Additionally, despite the fact that the Department of Justice refused to defend Congressional District 25, the NAACP and other intervenors were able to persuade the court that the district was one in which minority voters must be protected. The NAACP and SCSJ, with other groups, likewise convinced the DC court that the Senate redistricting plan must be rejected as intentionally discriminatory. In the State House plan, the NAACP and SCSJ were able to protect the only district in which an Asian-American candidate is elected to the Texas State House of Representatives. Finally, the decision presents strong language on the protection of coalition and crossover districts under Section 5, and will be a useful tool in defending those types of minority opportunity districts going forward. For national comment on the significance of the opinion see: http://www.thenation.com/blog/169602/federal-court-blocks-discriminatory-texas-redistricting-plan and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/federal-court-calls-texas-voting-maps-discriminatory.html?_r=2&ref=politics

SCSJ Ensures Equal Representation on Guilford County Board of Commissioners

SCSJ Ensures Equal Representation on Guilford County Board of Commissioners On February 7, 2012, SCSJ filed suit on behalf of the NAACP-Greensboro Branch and individual Guilford County voters to ensure equal representation on their county Board of Commissioners. SCSJ’s Complaint alleged the General Assembly’s Guilford County redistricting plan left thousands of residents without a county commissioners, while others received disproportionately large representation. United States Middle District of North Carolina Judge William L. Osteen granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction finding the legislation in question caused “unequal representation on the Board of Commissioners… violating… residents’ equal protection rights” in his March 14, 2012 Judge Osteen changed the election schedule to ensure equal representation on the Board, and SCSJ continues to work to rectify further anomalies found in the redistricting plan. Memorandum Opinion is attached.

Statewide Redistricting Lawsuits in NC will go forward

On February 6, the three judge panel ruled that the statewide redistricting lawsuits in North Carolina will go forward. The judges’ denied in part the State’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit SCSJ filed on behalf of the North Carolina NAACP, Democracy NC, the League of Women Voters, NC A. Philip Randolph Institute and 44 individual voters. The judges also refused to dismiss the redistricting lawsuit brought by Democratic officials and voters. Although the judges’ dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims, the case will proceed on the majority of the claims including claims that State House, State Senate and Congressional plans draw racially gerrymandered districts, divide too many counties and split an excessive number of precincts. The judges’ ruling allows claims to go forward against every district challenged by the plaintiffs including Congressional Districts 1, 4, 10 and 12. As the lawsuits move through the courts, SCSJ and the plaintiff organizations are working to minimize voter confusion and problems that may arise during the May primaries.

SCSJ in 2- Week Trial Urging the D.C. District Court to Find Texas’ Redistricting Plans Racially Discriminatory

SCSJ represents the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches in Texas v. United States, litigation in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia in which the state of Texas is seeking federal preclearance for its Congressional, State House and State Senate redistricting plans. The NAACP is joining with the United States Department of Justice in arguing that these plans were crafted with racially discriminatory intent and will have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Trial begins on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 and will conclude at the end of the following week, with closing arguments on February 3. The outcome of this trial will be key in what plan is in place for the 2012 elections conducted in Texas this fall. Texas is an incredibly diverse state, and the NAACP stands with all minority voters in resisting the state’s longstanding and egregious attempts to minimize the voting strength of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American voters in Texas.

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.

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.