USDOJ sues North Carolina to block restrictive election law

The US Justice Department filed suit in an attempt to block North Carolina's new election law in Greensboro today.

The civil complaint filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleges that the HB 589, which was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory on Aug. 12, "was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of African Americans to vote on account of their race or color," in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

"Against a backdrop of the state's history of voting discrimination against African Americans and a dramatic increase in the state's African-American voter turnout rates during the November general elections in 2008 and 2012, North Carolina enacted HB 589 with knowledge of the disproportionate effect that numerous provisions, both singly and together, would have on the equal political participation of minority voters," the lawsuit contends. "These provisions include the reduction of the early voting period, the elimination of same-day voter registration and the imposition of voter photo identification requirements without reasonable safeguards for voters who face barriers to obtaining such identification."

The federal government argues that members of the NC General Assembly were aware of the state's history of voting discrimination, the dramatic increase in black turnout through early voting and same-day registration and the disproportionate effect of the recent changes when they voted to approve the legislation.

Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis reacted swiftly to the lawsuit in a prepared statement.

"The Obama Justice Department's baseless claims about North Carolina's election reform law are nothing more than an obvious attempt to quash the will of the voters and hinder a hugely popular voter ID requirement," the said. "The law was designed to improve consistency, clarity and uniformity at the polls and it bring North Carolina's election system in line with a majority of other states. We are confident it protects the right of all voters, as required by the US and North Carolina constitutions."

Berger, a lawyer in Eden who represents Rockingham County and part of Guilford County, has been running an online video campaign ad promoting the voter ID law that attacks President Obama and US Sen. Kay Hagan for the past three weeks. Berger has flirted with an election challenge against Hagan, but the ad identifies him with his current post in the NC Senate. Tillis has already announced plans to run against Hagan.

"Voter ID prevents fraud and protects the integrity of our elections," the state senator says in the ad. "It's common sense."

The NC NAACP applauded the Justice Department's intervention.

"The Southern strategy of the well-funded, nationally-coordinated ultra-right has convinced many Republican moderates that the only way they can hold on to political power in Washington, and the South, is to drastically suppress voting rights for minorities," said William J. Barber II, president of the NC NAACP. "We need every resource, including the US government, to help us expose the national conspiracy behind this movement to suppress targeted constituencies in the new Southern electorate."

The US government argues that North Carolina has a history of voting-related suppression against African Americans that leads up to the present, which the lawsuit contends is "long-standing, well-documented and judicially recognized." The lawsuit cites Gingles v. Edmisen, a 1984 case heard in the Eastern District of North Carolina that concluded that the state  "officially and effectively discriminated against black citizens in matters touching their exercise of the voting franchise... from ca. 1900 to ca. 1970."

Supporting the claim that "race continues to be a significant and, oftentimes, divisive factor" in North Carolina elections, the government argues that "the continued effects of discrimination on African-American citizens in North Carolina, including their markedly lower socioeconomic conditions relative to white citizens, continue to hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process in North Carolina.

The complaint adds that "racial appeals have characterized certain political campaigns in North Carolina" (no specific examples are cited, but "White Hands" comes to mind) and argues that "many elected officials in North Carolina have not been responsive to the particularized needs of African Americans."

In addition to arguing that HB 589 was motivated by a discriminatory purpose — the harder climb for the plaintiff — the government also argues that the implementation of the new law will have a discriminatory result.

The lawsuit notes that the new law reduces the number of days in early voting and eliminates same-day registration — both of which black voters have used to a greater extent than their white counterparts. The complaint also notes that black voters are more likely to cast out-of-precinct provisional ballots — a practice that will be eliminated under the new law — and disproportionately lack photo IDs — a requirement under the law.

"The process of obtaining valid photo identification under HB 589 will impose a substantial and disproportionate burden on thousands of African-American voters in North Carolina who are disproportionately poor and disproportionately lack access to transportation," the lawsuit argues.

"Several changes mandated by HB 589 — including, among others, the reduction in number of early voting days, the elimination of same-day registration, the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots, and the imposition of a voter photo identification requirement — will act in combination to produce an even greater discriminatory impact on African-American voters than would each individual change standing alone," the complaint continues. "These provisions will operate in concert, resulting in unequal access for African-American voters to the political process."  

Republican candidate for mayor in the race, after all

James Lee Knox, who announced last month that he would withdraw from the Winston-Salem mayoral race, is running after all.

The Republican candidate never took any action to remove his name from the ballot, and last week his campaign manager was handing out a flier outlining Knox's platform at an event sponsored by Forsyth County Republican Women on the topic of Common Core educational standards.

Knox withdrew from the race in August after the Forsyth County Republican Party formally withheld its support because of Knox had used the racial slur "n*****" in reference to an election worker during the 2012 election. Knox's criminal record also surfaced as a liability during the campaign.

Singletary said that Knox completely acknowledged having made the slur.

"He has apologized," Singletary said. "The idea that he's a racist is ridiculous. Many of his clients are African American.... He spoke in error. He spoke in the heat of the moment."

Singletary said Knox suspended his campaign to protect his family and mitigate dissension within the county party.

"However, there needs to be a Republican on the ballot, so there is a choice," Singletary said. "James may not fit your image of a mayoral candidate, but he epitomizes a small-town mayor, family man, and small business owner who's made mistakes like the rest of us."

Knox is challenging Democrat Allen Joines, who has served as mayor since 2001.

Knight, race, police and job qualifications

Charles Cherry, a former Greensboro police captain, made some remarks during the speakers from the floor portion of last week’s city council meeting about the racialized cast of some statements made by city officials about police administration.

He took direct aim at Mayor Bill Knight, quoting him as stating, “Former Chief Tim Bellamy got his job because he was black.”

The mayor interrupted Cherry, and contradicted him.

“That is incorrect, sir,” Knight said.

Cherry shook his head in disbelief.

“Well, I don’t know what the newspaper said, but that is incorrect,” Knight said. “That is incorrect.”

Knight is technically correct in that he did not say verbatim that Tim Bellamy got his job as police chief because he was black. In fact he did not mention the former chief by name or use the word “black.”

The statement made by Knight during a well-attended candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad at Holy Trinity Episcopal Church on Sept. 15, 2009 was this:

“I would like to be sure going forward that as we select new administration into the police department command group that we’re doing it based on ability and qualifications. We have one chief selected because of race. We had another interim chief — don’t know what his situa — We have another chief who was basically forced out on racial issues. And we have a chief today who, in my opinion, is there primarily because of race.”

At the time, Tim Bellamy, who is black, served as chief of police. Prior to that Bellamy, had served as interim chief following the resignation of David Wray, who is white, in January 2006. Prior to that, Anthony Scales, who is black, served as interim.

There is no doubt that Knight was referring to Bellamy when he said, “We have a chief today who, in my opinion, is there primarily because of race.” And Bellamy's race is undoubtedly black.

Cherry is correct in essence in saying, "Mayor Bill Knight stated that former Chief Tim Bellamy got his job because he was black."

I had the opportunity to further confirm that the remark was directed at Bellamy in a phone conversation with Knight the following Sunday, when he told me: “It does not appear to me that he might have been the most qualified person for the job.”

I have left a phone message to Knight to ask him to explain his disavowal during last week’s city council meeting. I hope he will take the opportunity to clarify the matter.

YES! Weekly Preview -- June 15

YES! Weekly Editor Brian Clarey gives us a colorful rundown of what may be our dirtiest issue to date!

Oh yeah, and Happy Father's Day to all whom have filled the role. The YES! Weekly staff salutes you!

Does race matter in elections?

Does race still matter in elections? By law it does, at least in jurisdictions such as Guilford County that are covered under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Some (1, 2) are suggesting the county should avail itself of the act’s “bail-out” provisions, and one commentator, Joe Guarino of Greensboro, has called it a “bad law.”

A popular conservative blogger, Guarino drew a parallel between North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District, which is drawn to ensure minority representation, and the 13th Congressional District, which is drawn to the advantage of a Democratic candidate by packing liberal constituencies in Greensboro and Burlington into what would otherwise be a conservative-leaning district.

“I would conflate the situations in those two districts under the banner of self-serving Democratic behavior,” Guarino said.

First, some background on why North Carolina jurisdictions such as Guilford County — others are Caswell, Cumberland and Rockingham counties — are under federal supervision and require review from the US Justice Department before redrawn political districting maps can be put in place.

The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress in 1965 to remedy the disenfranchisement of minority voters, particularly in the South, where blacks had been systematically excluded and discouraged from political participation since the turn of the century. Through Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a formula was established to determine where “racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent… and to provide more stringent remedies where appropriate.”

Section 4 established three criteria for determining whether a jurisdiction should be covered under the Voting Rights Act:

The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of person of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

So is the Voting Rights Act still needed in Guilford County? After all, an African-American man holds the most powerful political position in the county. Blacks hold three out of 11 positions on the county commission. They hold two out of nine positions on the Greensboro City Council, albeit down from the traditional three slots and the city’s first black mayor was voted out of office after only one term. And three out of eight members of the Guilford County delegation to the NC General Assembly (excluding two state senators whose districts bleed across county lines) are black.

To be eligible for bailout, a jurisdiction must essentially keep its nose clean for 10 years, including having “no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination.” I’m not aware of Guilford County missing the mark on any of the items on the laundry list, although questions have certainly been raised in recent weeks about the dilution of the minority vote in effect and intent in Greensboro.

From the Justice Department website:

Before being allowed to "bailout," the jurisdiction must have eliminated those voting procedures and methods of elections that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process. It must also demonstrate that it has made constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register and vote and expand opportunities for voter participating, such as opportunities for registration and voting, and to appoint minority officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all levels of the stages of the electoral process. The jurisdiction must also present evidence of minority electoral participation.

The once adopted and then withdrawn Rakestraw redistricting plan was opposed by citizens on the basis that it would make minority voters worse off.

Southern Coalition for Social Justice voting rights attorney Allison Riggs testified before the Greensboro City Council on Tuesday that

There are significant reasons Plan B — the Rakestraw plan voted upon at the last city council meeting — is retrogressive. Plan B reduces the African-American voting age population in District 1 from nearly 71 percent to 66 percent. Alone, that significant reduction in voting age population may be enough to warrant a finding of retrogression. But when you pair that with the fact that Plan B moves high-performing African-American precincts out of District 1 and moves high-performing white precincts into the district, this is even more persuasive evidence of retrogression. In a jurisdiction where voter turnout is already low, this is significant. The moving of even one high-performing precinct can change the outcome of an election. If you change the political performance of a district such that minority voters have diminished ability to elect the candidate of their choice, you have created a retrogressive redistricting plan and the Department of Justice will object.

Notably, among the requirements of eligibility for bailout by a jurisdiction is that “no change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General.”

I don’t know whether, in a legal sense, this matters in terms of preclearance of a redistricting plan or bailing out of the Voting Rights altogether, but it’s not hard to observe that the atmosphere in Greensboro, as in many parts of the state, has become racially charged.

The conservative, white majority on council has made decision after decision that has antagonized minority constituents, whose concerns have been championed by the council’s two black members and one of its white members who draws significant support from the minority community. Most significant is the decision on Tuesday to reopen the White Street Landfill, but other decisions include reducing the period when additional early voting sites are available before this year’s general election, redirecting federal funding for energy efficiency from an area of the city that is majority black and economically depressed and moving the speakers-from-the-floor segment back to the end of the meeting at a time that is inconvenient for the public.

Sharon Hightower, an east Greensboro resident, raised the question of whether black citizens have a voice in city government:

Redistricting, early voting, landfill, $5 million grant they took from the east and made it a citywide issue, — these are serious issue, serious issues. Not only are they racist issues, they’re classist issues. Because if you’re lower income, you’re disenfranchised. And that’s the way they treat us. We make money. We spend money. We pay taxes. We buy homes. We got mortgage payments, car payments. We are valuable people, too.

Where might the US Justice Department’s interest in equitable redistricting plans come into play here?

For starters, the decisions of the conservative, white majority on council is likely to inspire a backlash by black voters and their progressive, white allies, energizing them to participate in larger numbers in the next municipal election. The current majority faction on council holds an interest in maintaining power and naturally would like to insulate itself against an electoral backlash. If a redistricting plan submitted to the Justice Department such as the discarded Rakestraw plan were rejected because it appeared designed to thwart the will of the black electorate, how might that appear to federal officials. What does the fact that a four-member majority of council initially supported the plan and passed it without any public explanation say about intent?

Greensboro is not necessarily unique in North Carolina in its experience with racial turmoil and political representation. Witness the division and emotion surrounding the push by the newly elected conservative majority on the Wake County School Board to discard the school system’s nationally recognized policy of achieving socio-economic balance in schools in favor of an assignment policy that keeps students closer to home.

On a statewide level, Politico reports that Republican lawmakers are using race as part of a mapping strategy to enhance their own political prospects by pushing black voters out of districts that Republicans want to win.

The redistricting wars are about to hit North Carolina, and Republicans in the Tar Heel State are considering a controversial but well-worn strategy that has worked elsewhere in the South: Create a new majority-minority district while destroying other districts occupied by white Democrats.

Whether such tactics should be regarded with the same level of concern as the classic voter suppression tactics of the Jim Crow era that gave rise to the Voting Rights Act in 1965, one thing is clear: The atmosphere in North Carolina is racially charged.

NC NAACP President William J. Barber II condemned a remark by US Rep. Patrick McHenry to the effect that creating a third black influence district would help the Republican Party pick up three seats in the next election in a statement yesterday.

When he says “minority-influence district” he means the tea party wants to draw new lines around black areas, and lump us all into a third segregated voting district. Their aim is to remove progressive black voters out of surrounding areas, where we can create a strong voting majority with the growing number of white and brown progressives to get our anti-racism, anti-poverty agenda passed. McHenry and the extreme ultra-conservative tea party Republicans want to defeat our progressive agenda, and take us back to their good old days. John Tedesco wants to keep us in our “neighborhoods.” Ron Margiotta wants to keep “the animals” in our “cages.” McHenry wants to re-segregate our voting districts so the tea party can win nine out of 13 of North Carolina’s congressional seats and pass their regressive agenda.

From there, Barber looks back to the 1898 Wilmington massacre, when the party of white supremacy — then the Democrats — used violence, intimidation and later legal codification to drive a wedge between black voters and progressive allies.

Is the Voting Rights Act still relevant in North Carolina? The answer to that question might have something to do with your political ideology, party affiliation and race.