Featured News

Recent News

SCSJ conducts Wills Clinic in Edgecombe County

SCSJ conducted its sixth wills’ clinic in Tarboro, North Carolina, on February 18-19. These wills’ clinics are part of SCSJ’s efforts to prevent heirs’ property passing without a will, a leading cause of family land loss in the South. During the most recent clinic, 20 Edgecombe County residents had 74 end of life documents made free of charge. This was the most individuals ever participating in an SCSJ wills’ clinic as well as the most documents produced. Coordinating partner and Edgecombe County Extension Service Community Rural Development Agent Jamilla Hawkins says, “This clinic is invaluable to our county. I am delighted to see so many people take advantage of this service.” Many thanks to everyone who made the service possible: SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook, the office of the Edgecombe County Agricultural Extension, and the nine law student volunteers from Carolina and Campbell Law who interviewed clients and assisted with end of life document drafting.

NC Immigrant Community Panel Discussion

Staff attorney Chris Brook spoke at Carolina Law on February 21, detailing SCSJ and the Carrboro community’s successful 2011 effort to repeal the town’s unconstitutional anti-loitering law and how it represented the capacity of the North Carolina immigrant community to overcome the challenges it faces. The panel discussion, entitled “The Street Corner Next Door,” was sponsored by the Immigration Law Association and the National Lawyers Guild and also featured representatives from the North Carolina DREAM Team, the UNC Center for Civil Rights, the North Carolina Immigrants Rights Project, and the ACLU of North Carolina. Brook highlighted how the ordinance applied only to the Carrboro street corner frequented by predominantly Latino day laborer, making it more difficult for them to find employment as well as infringing upon their First Amendment rights. The panelist agreed immigrants faced an inhospitable climate through the nation as well as within North Carolina currently, but held out the Carrboro example, among others, as demonstrating the power of community-drive efforts.

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.

Three judge panel in NC refused to dismiss the statewide redistricting case, NC NAACP v. NC

RALEIGH -- A pair of lawsuits challenging North Carolina's new Republican-penned boundaries for congressional and legislative seats can move forward, a three-judge panel said Monday. The Superior Court judges refused to dismiss the lawsuits, and threw out less than half of the 37 claims offered by attorneys for Democratic elected officials, civil rights groups, election-watchdog agencies and voters. Lawyers for the state and legislative leaders had wanted the lawsuits thrown out. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/07/1835645/redistricting-lawsuits-move-on.html#storylink=cpy

Redistricting lawsuits move on

RALEIGH — A pair of lawsuits challenging North Carolina’s new Republican-penned boundaries for congressional and legislative seats can move forward, a three-judge panel said Monday.…

Staff Attorney Chris Brook Speaks at “A Just Transition to a Green Economy”

SCSJ staff attorney Chris Brook spoke January 27 at the fourth annual Duke Law Forum for Law and Social Change symposium on “A Just Transition to a Green Economy.” While hailing the opportunities available in the transition to a green economy, Brook highlighted the potential dangers for low wealth communities of color. Too often industries “push destructive projects to communities of color as green job producers.” Brook focused on SCSJ’s successful effort to oppose the re-opening and expansion of the White Street Landfill in Greensboro, a proposal that began under the auspices of pursuing waste to energy possibilities. Check out Chris’s full discussion here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dj0KGdvR5U&feature=youtube

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.

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.

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