Newspapers / The Carolina Times (Durham, … / July 6, 2013, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Carolina Times (Durham, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
^ NCC NcU | lt IJlH 1 l.hl l l.lHl.l..n..dl.ull. 1 U..III>nli 00UI7 1£/01/1'~ UNC-CH SERIALS DEPARTMENT DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA - SATURDAY, JUly 6, 2013 VOLUME 92 - NUMBER 27 Voting Rights Advocates Face Uphill Battle By Freddie Allen NNPA Washington Correspondent WASHINGTON (NNPA) - In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, striking down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, civil rights organiza tions and voting rights advocates are preparing to battle against an expected the avalanche of new voting laws that threaten to wipe out the incredible gains ushered in the passage ofthe 1965 Voting Rights Act. The ruling effectively ended voting rights protections under section 5, forcing Congress to update the coverage formula that required nine states and the counties and jurisdictions in six other states to preclear any changes to state and local voting laws with the Justice Department or a federal court. Writing the majority opin ion for the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Anthony Ken nedy acknowledged that “vot ing discrimination still exists,” but challenged the relevancy of the section 4 coverage formula originally crafted nearly 50 years ago. However, Congress has ex tended the law for times, saying it is still needed. Hours after the Supreme Court decision, state officials in Texas and South Carolina an nounced that they were moving forward with new voting regula tions that civil rights groups say will disproportionately disen franchise black, Latino and poor voters. “All the states and jurisdic tions that were covered by sec tion 5 utilizing the section 4 for mula have now been released, said Hilary Shelton Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the NAACP. 'So [those states] can go ahead and make all those changes that the Justice Department has blocked over the years.’” In a June 2013 study re leased a few weeks before the Shelby County v. Holder deci sion, a Brennan Center for Jus tice report stated, “In the most recent legislative session and as of April 29, 2013, 28 restrictive voting bills 65 were introduced n the states that are covered, wholly or in part, by Section 5. Two have already passed, and 17 are still pending as of June 0, 2013. The bills introduced include, for example, a strict >hoto identification requirement n Virginia, restrictions on early voting and same-day registration n North Carolina, and a South Carolina bill requiring documen- iary proof of citizenship to regis- :er to vote.” Kimberley Crenshaw, co bunder of the African American ’olicy Forum, a civil rights think ank that works to advance racial ustice in the United States and ibroad, said that the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t about acts, or even about proof of on going voter discrimination in the )nce-covered states. Crenshaw said that the Supreme Court de- :ision was about one thing - ide- I “It’s like building a dam to ceep the lowlands from flooding ind for 40 years the lowlands lon’t flood and then deciding hat you don’t need the dam any- nore,” said Crenshaw. Civil rights and voting rights idvocates want all voters to be )repared and vigilant when it :omes to restrictive bills that pop ip across the country, such as 'oter ID laws, proof of citizen- hip requirements, bans on Sunday voting, attempts to purge naturalized citizens from the rolls, the elimination of same- day registration and cuts to early voting periods. “All these policies are aimed at making it harder to vote for Supreme Court Sends Affirmative Action Case Back to Lower Court By George E. Curry NNPA Editor-in-Chief WASHINGTON (NNPA) - The United States Supreme Court sidestepped making a de cision on whether a University Clarence Thomas would have voted to eliminate affirmative action. Opmissions plan that allows the limited consideration of race is unconstitutional by remanding the case to the U.S. Court of Ap peals for the Sth Circuit for fur ther review. On Monday, the court voted 7-1 to send the case back to the Sth Circuit in New Orleans. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the lower court did not subject the Univer sity of Texas to the highest stan dard ofjudicial scrutiny. “Strict scrutiny imposes on the university the ultimate bur den of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable, race- neutral alternatives do not suf fice,” Kennedy wrote. “Rather than perform this searching ex amination, however, the Court of Appeals held petitioner could challenge only whether [the Uni versity’s] decision to reintroduce race as a factor in admissions was made in good faith.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wanted to uphold the lower court’s decision supporting the University of Texas, was the lone dissenter. “The University of Texas at Austin (University) is candid about what it is endeavoring to do: It seeks to achieve student- body diversity through an ad missions policy patterned after the Harvard plan referenced as exemplary in Justice Powell’s opinion in Regents of Univ, of Cal. V. Bakke, she wrote. “The University has steered clear of a quota system like the one struck down in Bakke, which excluded all nonminority candidates from competition for a fixed number of seats.” She added, “And like so many educational institutions across the Nation, the University has taken care to follow the model approved by the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger.” Clarence Thomas was the only justice who went on record saying he would have voted to overturn the court’s 2003 deci sion in Grutter, permitting the narrowly tailored use of race in college admissions. In his concurring opinion, Thomas said, “I write separately to explain that I would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that people of color,” said Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project. Voting rights advocates now will also lean heavily on section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but most admit that many laws will Opmissions plan that allows the limited consideration of race is unconstitutional by remanding the case to the U.S. Court ofAp- peals for the 5th Circuit for fur ther review. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter in affirmative action case. On Monday, the court voted 7-1 to send the case back to the Sth Circuit in New Orleans. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the lower court did not subject the Univer sity of Texas to the highest stan dard ofjudicial scrutiny. “Strict scrutiny imposes on the university the ultimate bur den of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable, race- neutral alternatives do not suf fice,” Kennedy wrote. “Rather than perform this searching ex amination, however, the Court of Appeals held petitioner could challenge only whether [the Uni versity’s] decision to reintroduce race as a factor in admissions was made in good faith.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wanted to uphold the lower court’s decision supporting the University of Texas, was the lone dissenter. “The University of Texas at Austin (University) is candid about what it is endeavoring to do: It seeks to achieve student- body diversity through an ad missions policy patterned after the Harvard plan referenced as exemplary in Justice Powell’s opinion in Regents of Univ, of Cal. V. Bakke, she wrote. “The University has steered clear of a quota system like the one struck down in Bakke, which excluded all nonminority candidates from competition for a fixed number of seats.” She added, “And like so many educational institutions across the Nation, the University has taken care to follow the model approved by the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger.” Clarence Thomas was the only justice who went on record saying he would have voted to overturn the court’s 2003 deci sion in Grutter, permitting the narrowly tailored use of race in college admissions. In his concurring opinion, Thomas said, “I write separately to explain that I would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” Justice Elena Kagan, a go into effect and lawsuits may not come fast enough. “In essence this decision says that 'discrimination is still real and must still be challenged,’ but rather than address the issue o( (Continued On Page 7) former Solicitor General, rescued herself, presumably because she had worked on the case earlier. University of Texas President Bill Powers said Monday in a statement, “We’re encouraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case. We will continue to de fend the University’s admission policy on remand in the lower court under the strict standards that the Court first articulated in the Bakke case, reaffirmed in the Grutter case, and laid out again today. We believe the Univer sity’s policy fully satisfies those standards. “We remain committed to as sembling a student body at The University of Texas at Austin that provides the educational benefits of diversity on campus while re specting the rights of all students and acting within the constitu tional framework established by the Court. Today’s ruling will have no impact on admissions decisions we have already made or any immediate impact on our holistic admissions policies.” The case grew out of a deci sion by Abigail Fisher, a white Texas resident, to file suit against the University of Texas after she was turned down for admission for the 2008 term. Fisher, who later graduated from Louisiana State University, claimed the university had violated the equal protection clause of the 14 A th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it allowed the consideration of race in evaluating applicants to the university. Fisher joined a growing list of whites who have turned the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment on its head. (Continued On Page 7) NC redistricting judges don’t need more briefs RALEIGH (AP) - Judges considering arguments in North Carolina’s redistricting litiga tion have refused a request by attorneys who sued over legis lative and congressional district boundaries to file more briefs af ter the U.S. Supreme Court deci sions this week. A three-judge panel on June 28 denied a motion by Demo cratic voters, election watchdog and civil rights groups who have challenged the maps Republi cans drew in 2011. One of the Democrats’ lawyers said Su preme Court opinions on the Voting Rights Act and affirma tive action confirm their claims that the lines are the result of racial gerrymandering. The judges said they do not need more briefs but acknowl edged the Supreme Court deci sions. The state judges have re ceived thousands of documents from attorneys and held days of hearings, but have not yet ruled whether the boundaries should be redrawn. TELEPHONE (919) 682-2913 PRICE: 30 Playing the Walltown Reunion Parade was one o the activities on June 29. See photos on page 2. NC Racial Justice repeal leaves questions in wake By Chris Kardish RALEIGH (AP) - With the repeal ofNorth Carolina’s Racial Jus tice Act after just four years on the books, it’s uncertain how quickly the state will resume executions or what the legacy will be for the law that proponents say was intended to rid capital punishment of racial bias. Gov. Pat McCrory’s signature of approval for the repeal capped off a debate over the law’s intent and effectiveness that started even before it passed the state legislature in 2009 almost entirely along party lines. But experts and advocates say the issue of promoting racial equal ity in the criminal justice system will remain salient, especially in light of a growing number of states taking steps to abolish the death penalty completely - which was always the goal at the heart of the RJA, opponents say. As approved under then-Gov. Beverly Perdue, a Democrat, the RJA allowed convicted murderers to use statewide and local statis tics to argue that racial bias in court proceedings and jury selection tainted their convictions, earning them life sentences instead of lethal injection if ajudge agreed. The law aimed to address bias in jury selection and sentencing, which has been uncovered in at least 25 states, according to the non- partisan Death Penalty Information Center. Studies have shown that juries are far more likely to seek the death penalty for black-on-white murders and that prosecutors are more likely to strike African-Amer icans from juries. Republicans, who always opposed the idea of commuting individ ual sentences using statistics, successfully restricted the use of capital punishment statistics to the local level with a 2012 amendment that also required other forms of evidence to overturn a death-penalty rul ing. Before Republicans weakened the law, though, a Cumberland County judge granted a life sentence to death-row inmate Marcus Robinson under the act largely on the strength of a Michigan State University study ofNorth Carolina that found black jurors were more than twice as likely to be struck from juries than their white counter parts. Judge Greg Weeks also found other evidence of bias among prosecutors, and he ruled in favor of three more inmates under the Racial Justice Act after the 2012 rollback. Robinson’s case was appealed by the state to the North Caroli na Supreme Court, which agreed in April to review it. Tye Hunter, executive director of the Durham-based nonprofit Center for Death Penalty Litigation, said he expects the court will hear the case in late fall. The court hasn’t yet agreed to hear the three other RJA cases. This year Republicans with supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly mounted a fiill repeal. They’ve argued that the law allowed most of the 153 death-row inmates to challenge their sentences regardless of their race, creating a logjam that amounts to a de-facto moratorium on executions. Hunter said he doesn’t expect executions to begin in the near fu ture because of existing appeals and all-but-certain challenges among inmates that their due process rights were violated with the repeal of an act they used to contest their sentences. Rep. Paul Stam, R-Wake and an attorney, said due process violations are bogus because the inmates were convicted before the law existed. He said he would give the state many months, not years, before executions resume be cause an appeal about the legality of lethal injections is expected to be resolved soon. The state Supreme Court case was once considered a defining test for the Racial Justice Act with the potential for broader implications. Even with the repeal of the act, that review could send a signal that either bolsters the case RJA advocates tried to press for four years or prop up the status quo, said Bryan Stevenson, the executive director ofthe Equal Justice Initiative and an expert on racial inequality in the criminal justice system. (Continued On Page 7)
The Carolina Times (Durham, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 6, 2013, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75