2 - Saturday, april 29,2017 - the CAROLINA TIMES
Legal rulings could force Texas
back into federal oversight
By Paul J. Weber
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -
A run of legal defeats over
its voting laws means Tex
as could risk becoming the
first state forced back into
federal oversight since the
U.S. Supreme Court struck
down key parts of the Vot
ing Rights Act four years
ago.
The justices’ 2013 ruling
struck down a provision in
the 1965 law that required
Texas and other states
with troubled histories of
racial discrimination to
“pre-clear” any voting law
changes with the federal
government before enact
ing them. However, it left
standing a scarcely used
provision in the act that mi
nority groups are now em
bracing as an emergency
brake.
Under the provision,
the preclearance mandate
can be restored if a state
is found to intentionally
discriminate against mi
norities. On April 20, a
federal court reached that
conclusion about Texas for
the third time in roughly a
month - decisions dealing
with its voter ID law and
Republican-drawn elector
al maps.
The possibility of Texas
returning to federal over
sight is likely still down
the road, since more press
ing for Democrats now is
getting a federal court to
order new Texas voting
maps for 2018 after racial
gerrymandering and voter
dilution were found in the
ones originally drafted by
Republicans in 2011. The
latest 2-1 decision by a
federal panel in San Anto
nio this week found race
was used in statehouse re-
districting to intentionally
“undermine Latino voting
opportunity.”
New maps could make
some congressional Re
publicans in Texas more
vulnerable in the first mid
term elections under Presi
dent Donald Trump, and
potentially swing seats to
Democrats in the Legisla
ture, where Republicans
currently have overwhelm
ing control.
But opponents of Texas’
voting laws say they will
press courts to again re
quire the state to fall under
federal “preclearance” be
fore changing future voting
laws.
Similar efforts are also
unfolding in North Caro
lina, where a voter ID law
that was struck down as ra
cially discriminatory could
be taken up by the Supreme
Court early as April 24.
“You’ve had now six
court rulings that have
found intentional discrimi
nation,” said Democratic
state Rep. Rafael Anchia,
who chairs Texas’ Latino
legislative caucus. “If that’s
not enough to (restore pre
clearance), I don’t know
what is.”
Republican Texas Attor
ney General Ken Paxton
said this week he is confi
dent the state will ultimate
ly prevail. His stance is that
the recent redistricting
North Carolina civil rights center
faces conservative ire
(Continued From Front))
One lawsuit by the center alleging segregation in Pitt County schools in eastern
North Carolina especially rankled Long. County officials told Long they successfully
fought it with $500,000 from a textbook fund. “This is outrageous,” he said. “We can
not allow academic centers to hire full-time lawyers to sue cities and counties.”
The center has represented dozens of North Carolina individuals and groups over
the years, often successfully, in fighting social, economic and racial discrimination. Its
clients are too poor to afford representation - their targets are often school districts, cit
ies, counties, even state government.
When Concerned Citizens for Successful Schools in Johnston County sought re
cords proving its poor and minority students weren’t getting equal education opportu
nities, the local school board balked. Last year the center sued and, within months, the
records were delivered.
“The center gave our group credibility because we were just a group of concerned
citizens,” said member Susan Lassiter. “We are not the ACLU. We are not the NAACP.
We are just citizens wanting to improve our schools.”
Her group doesn’t have deep pockets and she now worries about finding a civil rights
attorney who is experienced in public education law and will work for free.
Concerned Citizens of Duplin County, which claimed segregation in a local schools
facility proposal, is also bothered by the proposal. Member Johnny Hollingsworth said
the center was serving its education mission: “I can’t think of a better way to train new
lawyers than through practical, hands-on experience.”
The dean of the UNC law school said the center will work only on current cases and
not join any new lawsuits for now. All acknowledge the fight’s not about money: The
penter isn’t state-funded but runs on grants, foundation money and donations.
■ “The folks pushing this are opposed to the nature of the advocacy that the center
does and the issues that people we represent are fighting for,” said center managing
attorney Mark Dorosin.
Chambers was one of the first blacks attending UNC’s law school, becoming editor
of its Law Review and graduating first in his class. He went on to a distinguished career
litigating civil rights cases, rising to head the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund for a time. He died in 2013.
John Gresham, longtime friend and law partner, said Chambers envisioned a strong
advocacy arm in the center because he knew the civil rights struggle wouldn’t end
soon, if ever.
“He never thought the struggle was over,” Gresham said. “In fact, he worried that
a number of things were going backward instead of forward, so Chambers was under
no illusion that this was something that was going to be accomplished in his lifetime.”
rulings are moot because
they pertain to maps that
were redrawn by courts be
fore ever being used in an
election.
The original maps were
drawn following the re
lease of 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau figures that showed
Hispanics accounting for
two of every three new
Texas residents in the pre
vious decade. Texas GOP
legislators bristle at claims
they passed a strict voter
ID law - which courts have
since weakened - and vot
ing maps with the purpose
of undermining the grow
ing electoral power of mi
norities.
“I disavow that. Did
anybody here intend to dis
criminate against minori
ties when we voted
judge
appointment
(Continued From Front)
has fallen in recent years. The
bill also would allow more cases
to bypass the appeals court and
go directly to the state Supreme
Court.
Cooper’s decision to appoint a
jurist who is also gay may help
improve relations with
gay-rights advocates who
were angered when Cooper
negotiated a partial repeal
of House Bill 2, said Pro
fessor Eric Heberlig of the
University of North Caro
lina at Charlotte.
The compromise reached
with Republican legislators
blocks cities from passing
local anti-discrimination
ordinances until a month
after the next gubernato
rial election in 2020. Gay-
rights advocates say Coo
per should have worked to
repeal the entire law.
NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM COUNTY
PLEASE ENTER MY SUBSCRIPTION FOR
~] 1 year-Durham County -$26..88
2222 1 year-North Carolina - $31.65
1 year-Out of State -$30.00
Mr.
Mrs.
Ms.
Address
City State Zip Code
Check or Money Order Enclosed Phone No.
Bill me within thirty days ( ) -
MAIL TO:
THE CAROLINA TIMES
P. O. Box 3825
Durham, North Carolina 27702
that?” Republican state Rep. Larry Phillips said on the House floor
earlier this month. “That’s what we were just told. They were saying
we intentionally did that. We had intent to do that. I reject that.”
His words were punctuated by applause in the chamber, which
Republicans control 95-55.
In 2013, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the part of the Vot
ing Rights Act under which all or parts of 15 mainly Southern states
had been required to submit all voting changes for approval from
Washington before they could take effect. That decision, written by
Chief Justice John Roberts, said it was no longer fair to subject those
jurisdictions to strict federal monitoring based on data that was at
least 40 years old.
Texas is already home to the first local government forced back
under preclearance: a federal judge in January required the Houston
suburb of Pasadena to submit voting changes to the U.S. Justice De
partment.
Michael Li, an elections expert with the New-York based Brennan
Center for Justice that helped sue over Texas’ voter ID law, said there
have been few preclearance battles like the ones opponents in Texas
are now waging. He said courts could wait until Texas appeals the re
cent findings of intentional discrimination before weighing whether
the state again needs federal supervision.
WANTED DBE, WBE & MBE BIDS
for the following jobs:
NCDOT Division Two
DB00338 Pitt Co. Bid Date: May 10th
DB00309 Carteret Co. Bid Date: May 10th
NCDOT Division Eight
DH00240 Scotland Co. Bid Date: May 9th
These projects may involve some or all of the following aspects
of construction: construction survey, clear and grub, trucking,
drainage, milling, paving, incidental concrete, fence and guard-
rail, signs, structures, traffic control, utilities, signals, pavement
marking, erosion control and seeding
Please contact S. T. Wooten Corporation at 252-291-5165,
Fax 252-243-0900 no later than 5:00 p.m.
the day before the bid date.
WANTED DBE, WBE & MBE BIDS
for the following jobs:
Central Letting
C203021 Cumberland Co. Bid Date: May 2nd
NCDOT Division Four
DD00212 Wilson Co. Bid Date: May 9th
NCDOT Division Eight
DH00241 Moore Co. Bid Date: May 9th
Central Letting
C203903 Johnston Co. Bid Date: May 16th
C203806 Wake/Franklin Co. Bid Date: May 16th
These projects may involve some or all of the following aspects of
construction: construction survey, clear and grub, trucking, drain
age, milling, paving, incidental concrete, fence and guardrail, signs,
structures, traffic control, utilities, signals, pavement marking, ero
sion control and seeding. Please contact S. T. Wooten Corporation
at 252-291-5165,Fax 252-243-0900 no later than 5:00 p.m.
the day before the bid date.
IN THE MATTER OF THE
FORECLOSURE OF A LIEN BY
Ashfield Place Homeowners Associaiton, Inc., a North
Carolina Corporation against,
Warren Ballentine and Benita Ballentine
Owners.
Lien Dated: 6/19/2014
Recorded as 14 M 751 in the Office of the Clerk of
Superior Court.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
BEFORE THE CLERK
14 SP 734
NOTICE OF SALE
Under and by virtue ot the power and authority contained in the Corrective Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions, Easements, Charges and Liens for the Ashfield Place Homeowners Association,
Inc., and pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 47 of the North Carolina General Statutes, and because of
default in the payment of certain assessments secured by a Claim of Lien dated 6/19/2014 and recorded
as 14 M 751 and pursuant to the Order of the Clerk of Superior Court for Durham County, North
Carolina, entered in this foreclosure proceeding, the undersigned Tina Frazier Pace, Trustee, will
expose for sale at public auction on the 5/09/2017, at 2:15 p.m. at the usual and customary place for
such sales at the Durham County Courthouse, the following described real property (including the
house and any other improvements thereon):
All of Lot 123 in ASHFIELD PLACE, Phase 2 and 4A, as shown on a map thereof recorded in Plat
Book 165, Pages 10-16 (13), Durham County Registry, to which map reference is hereby made for a more
particular description.
Commonly known as: 5119 Paces Ferry Drive, Durham, NC 27712
The sale will be made subject to all prior liens, unpaid taxes, restrictions and easements of record and
assessments, if any.
The record owners of the above-described real property as reflected on the records of the Durham County
Register of Deeds not more than ten (10) days prior to the posting of this Notice is Warren Ballentine and
Benita Ballentine.
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §45-21.10(b), any successful bidder may be required to
deposit with the Trustee immediately upon conclusion of the sale, a cash deposit of five (5%) of the amount
of the bid, or the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00), whichever is greater. Any successful bidder
shall be required to tender the full balance purchase price so bid in cash or certified check at the time the
Trustee tenders a deed for the property or attempts to tender such deed, and should said successful bidder
fail to pay the full balance purchase price so bid at that time, he shall remain liable on his bid as provided for
in North Carolina General Statute §§45-21.30(d) and (e).
To the extent this sale involves residential property with less than fifteen (15) rental units, you are
hereby notified of the following:
a. An order for possession of the property may be issued pursuant to Section 45-21.29 of the
North Carolina General Statutes in favor of the purchaser and against the party or parties in
possession by the clerk of superior court of the county in which the property is sold; and
b. Any person who occupies the property pursuant to a rental agreement entered into or
renewed on or after October 1,2007, may, after receiving the notice of sale, terminate the
rental agreement by providing written notice to the landlord, to be effective on a date stated in
the notice that is at least 10 days, but no more than 90 days, after the sale date contained in
the notice of sale, provided that the mortgagor has not cured the default at the time the tenant
provided the notice of termination. Upon termination of a rental agreement, the tenant is liable
for rent due under the rental agreement prorated to the effective date of the termination.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that if you have been granted a Discharge of Debtor pursuant to
Section 727 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code, or are currently under the protection of
the Bankruptcy Court, then this attempt at collection is not directed to you personally, but is only
an effort to secure the property which is subject to the lien of the Association Dues, or in the
alternative, is an attempt to collect only post-bankruptcy assessments.
This sale will be held open ten (10) days for upset bids as required by law.
This the 24 day of April, 2017.
Tina Frazier Pace, Trustee
NC State Bar No 20968
HATCH, LITTLE & BUNN, LLP
327 Hillsborough Street
P. O. Box 527
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919)856-3940