DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE ) OF THE NAACP; EMMANUEL BAPTIST ) CHURCH; COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN ) CHURCH; BARBEE’S CHAPEL MISSIONARY ) BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.; ROSANELL ) EATON; ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN ) COLEMAN; JOCELYN FERGUSON-KELLY; ) FAITH JACKSON; MARY PERRY; and ) MARIA TERESA UNGER PALMER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV658 ) PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, in his ) official capacity as Governor of ) North Carolina; KIM WESTBROOK ) STRACH, in her official capacity ) as Executive Director of the ) North Carolina State Board of ) Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, ) in her official capacity as ) Secretary of the North Carolina ) State Board of Elections; JOSHUA ) D. MALCOLM, in his official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections; ) JAMES BAKER, in his official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections; ) and MAJA KRICKER, in her official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH ) CAROLINA; A. PHILIP RANDOLPH ) INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP ) COLLABOARATIVE; COMMON CAUSE NORTH ) CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY ) BRANDON; OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA ) STOHLER; and HUGH STOHLER, ) Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 485 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) and ) ) LOUIS M. DUKE; ASGOD BARRANTES; ) JOSUE E. BERDUO; CHARLES M. GRAY; ) NANCY J. LUND; BRIAN M. MILLER; ) BECKY HURLEY MOCK; MARY-WREN ) RITCHIE; LYNNE M. WALTER; and ) EBONY N. WEST, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenors, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV660 ) THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ) JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official ) capacity as a member of the State ) Board of Elections; RHONDA K. ) AMOROSO, in her official capacity ) as a member of the State Board of ) Elections; JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, in ) his official capacity as a member ) of the State Board of Elections; ) PAUL J. FOLEY, in his official ) capacity as a member of the State ) Board of Elections; MAJA KRICKER, ) in her official capacity as a ) member of the State Board of ) Elections; and PATRICK L. ) MCCRORY, in his official capacity ) as the Governor of the State of ) North Carolina, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV861 ) THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ) THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD ) OF ELECTIONS; and KIM W. STRACH, ) Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 485 in her official capacity as ) Executive Director of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 485 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FINDINGS OF FACT.......................................... 4 A. North Carolina Voting Laws........................... 4 1. Voter ID........................................ 4 2. Early Voting.................................... 5 3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting............. 10 4. SDR............................................ 13 5. Pre-registration............................... 15 B. Post-2011 Legislation............................... 16 1. Introduction of HB 589......................... 17 2. Revision of HB 589............................. 21 3. Enactment of HB 836............................ 34 C. Procedural History.................................. 43 D. Evidence of Voter Experience Under Current Law...... 50 1. Voter ID....................................... 51 a. Voter Education about the Voter-ID Requirement Prior to the Reasonable Impediment Exception...................... 51 b. Voter Education After Enactment of the Reasonable Impediment Exception........... 56 c. Voters’ Experience in Acquiring Qualifying ID........................................ 68 d. Evidence of North Carolina Voters Without ID .......................................... 82 e. Availability of the Reasonable Impediment Exception................................. 95 2. Change in the Early-Voting Schedule........... 125 3. Elimination of SDR............................ 152 Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 485 4. Elimination of OOP Provisional Voting......... 176 5. Elimination of Pre-Registration............... 184 6. Other Challenged Provisions................... 190 7. 2014 Data..................................... 194 E. Testimony of Other Experts......................... 197 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...................................... 197 A. Section 2 of the VRA............................... 197 1. The Law of Vote Denial and Abridgement Claims. 197 2. The Totality of the Circumstances & Gingles... 219 a. The Success of the Prior Practices in Fostering Minority Political Participation ......................................... 220 b. History of Official Discrimination....... 227 c. Racially-Polarized Voting................ 235 d. Enhancing the Opportunity for Discrimination ......................................... 237 e. Candidate Slating Process................ 238 f. Continuing Effects of Discrimination Hindering Participation.................. 238 g. Racial Appeals in Campaigning............ 257 h. Minority Electoral Success............... 259 i. Responsiveness of Elected Officials...... 261 j. Tenuousness of the State’s Justifications 263 i. Voter ID............................ 264 ii. Early Voting........................ 276 iii. SDR................................. 281 iv. OOP Voting.......................... 308 ii Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 485 v. Pre-Registration.................... 317 3. Equality of Opportunity and Social and Historical Conditions.................................... 322 a. Voter ID................................. 325 b. Early Voting............................. 339 c. SDR...................................... 342 d. OOP Voting............................... 356 e. Pre-registration......................... 366 f. Cumulative Effect........................ 369 4. Discriminatory Result: Conclusion............. 373 5. Discriminatory Intent......................... 377 6. Additional Problems with the § 2 Results Claim 412 B. “Traditional” Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Claims............................................. 426 C. Anderson-Burdick Claim............................. 426 1. Voter ID...................................... 432 2. Early Voting.................................. 435 3. SDR........................................... 439 4. OOP........................................... 443 5. Pre-registration.............................. 448 6. CBOE Discretion............................... 452 7. Poll Observers and Challengers................ 453 8. Cumulative Effect of Provisions............... 454 D. Twenty-Sixth Amendment Claim....................... 456 E. Remedy............................................. 465 III. CONCLUSION.............................................. 467 iii Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 6 of 485 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. In these related cases, Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing various provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2013-381 (“SL 2013-381”), an omnibus election-reform law, as amended by Session Law 2015-103 (“SL 2015-103”).1 Plaintiffs are the United States of America (the “United States”) in case 1:13CV861, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several organizations and individual plaintiffs (the “NAACP Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV658, and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina along with several organizations and individuals (the “League Plaintiffs”) in case 1:13CV660. Additionally, the court allowed a group of “young voters” and others (the “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) to intervene in case 1:13CV660. (Doc. 62 in case 1:13CV660.) Considered together, Plaintiffs raise claims under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973). (Doc. 365 in case 1:13CV861; Doc. 384 in case 1:13CV658; Docs. 1 & 63 in case 1:13CV660.) The United 1 The parties sometimes refer to the challenged law as “House Bill 589,” its original designation by the North Carolina General Assembly. The final product, as a duly-enacted law passed by both chambers of the General Assembly and signed by the governor, will be referred to as Session Law 2013-381. Prior to passage, the bill will be referred to as HB 589. Case 1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP Document 420 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 485 States also moves for the appointment of federal observers to monitor future elections in North Carolina pursuant to § 3(a) of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10302(a) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973a(a)). (Doc. 365 at 33.)2 Defendants are the State of North Carolina, Governor Patrick L. McCrory, the State Board of Elections (“SBOE”), and several State officials acting in their official capacities. The record is extensive. The court held a four-day evidentiary hearing and argument beginning July 7, 2014, on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which evidence is now part of the trial record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Fifteen days of trial on the merits were conducted from July 13 through 31, 2015. An additional six days of trial on the voter photo identification (“ID”) provisions of the law were conducted from January 25 through February 1, 2016. The court has considered testimony
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Florida 2004
    This story was edited and ready to run when I happened to mention to my editor, John Bennet, that I’d spent the afternoon hanging Kerry literature on doorknobs. Twenty minutes later, I got a call from both Bennet and David Remnick, telling me they had to kill the story because of my obvious bias. “What would happen if Fox News found out?” Remnick asked, to which I replied, “What would happen if The Nation found out that the New Yorker killed a good story because it was afraid of Fox News?” I argued that I was not a paid operative of the Kerry campaign, but just a citizen participating in democracy. And if they couldn’t trust me to keep my politics out of my writing, how could they trust me to be on staff at all? It’s conversations like this that explain why I don’t write for the New Yorker anymore. Dan Baum 1650 Lombardy Drive Boulder, CO 80304 (303) 546-9800 (303) 917-5024 mobile [email protected] As the third week of September began in south Florida, the air grew torpid and heavy with menace. Hurricane Ivan was lurking south of Cuba, trying to decide whether to punish the Sunshine State with a third tropical lashing in as many weeks. Palm trees along Biscayne Boulevard rustled nervously. The sky over Miami swelled with greenish clouds that would neither dissipate nor burst. Election day was fifty-six days off, and Florida’s Democrats anticipated it with an acute and complex dread. The presidential Florida.18 Created on 10/1/04 5:32 AM Page 2 of 25 contest in Florida is as close this year as it was in 2000,1 which raises the specter of another fight over whether and how to recount votes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party in North Carolina: Threat to a New Birth of Freedom
    THE TEA PARTY IN NORTH CAROLINA: THREAT TO A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM By Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights is responsible for the content and analysis of this report. Additional materials, including updates and exclusive web content can be found at irehr.org. Copyright © 2014 Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights. All Rights Reserved. No Part of this report may be reproduced without the permission of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights except for sections quoted with proper attribution for purposes of reviews and public education. The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR) is a national organization with an international outlook examining racist, anti-Semitic, white nationalist, and far-right social movements, analyzing their intersection with civil society and social policy, educating the public, and assisting in the protection and extension of human rights through organization and informed mobilization. INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH & EDUCATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS P.O. Box 411552 Kansas City, MO 64141 voice: (816) 474-4748 email: [email protected] website: www.irehr.org Contents Preface by Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II 1 Foreword: Exposing the Hard Right's Bag of Tricks Against Poor and Working 2 White People by Alan McSurely Introduction 4 Inside the Tea Party in North Carolina 7 Tea Party Membership in North Carolina 10 North Carolina Tea Party Chapters 18 Beyond Policy: North Carolina Tea Party’s
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion and Order
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE ) OF THE NAACP; EMMANUEL BAPTIST ) CHURCH; COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN ) CHURCH; BARBEE’S CHAPEL MISSIONARY ) BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.; ROSANELL ) EATON; ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN ) COLEMAN; JOCELYN FERGUSON-KELLY; ) FAITH JACKSON; MARY PERRY; and ) MARIA TERESA UNGER PALMER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV658 ) PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, in his ) official capacity as Governor of ) North Carolina; KIM WESTBROOK ) STRACH, in her official capacity ) as Executive Director of the ) North Carolina State Board of ) Elections; RHONDA K. AMOROSO, ) in her official capacity as ) Secretary of the North Carolina ) State Board of Elections; JOSHUA ) D. MALCOLM, in his official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections; ) JAMES BAKER, in his official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections; ) and MAJA KRICKER, in her official ) capacity as a member of the North ) Carolina State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH ) CAROLINA; A. PHILIP RANDOLPH ) INSTITUTE; UNIFOUR ONESTOP ) COLLABOARATIVE; COMMON CAUSE NORTH ) CAROLINA; GOLDIE WELLS; KAY ) BRANDON; OCTAVIA RAINEY; SARA ) STOHLER; and HUGH STOHLER, ) Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 429 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 485 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) and ) ) LOUIS M. DUKE; ASGOD BARRANTES; ) JOSUE E. BERDUO; CHARLES M. GRAY; ) NANCY J. LUND; BRIAN M. MILLER; ) BECKY HURLEY MOCK; MARY-WREN ) RITCHIE; LYNNE M. WALTER; and ) EBONY N. WEST, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenors, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV660 ) THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ) JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official ) capacity as a member of the State ) Board of Elections; RHONDA K.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 Hearing Committee
    DEMOCRACY RESTORATION ACT OF 2009 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 3335 MARCH 16, 2010 Serial No. 111–84 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 55–480 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 15:37 Jun 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\CONST\031610\55480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 55480 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM ROONEY, Florida TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin GREGG HARPER, Mississippi CHARLES A.
    [Show full text]
  • Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: the Election Integrity Movement's Rise and the Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008
    MARTA STEELE Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: The Election Integrity Movement's Rise and the Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008 A Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism Book i MARTA STEELE Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: The Election Integrity Movement's Rise and the Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008 Copyright© 2012 by Marta Steele. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles and reviews. For information, address the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism, 1021 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43205. The Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization. The Educational Publisher www.EduPublisher.com BiblioPublishing.com ISBN:978-1-62249-026-4 ii Contents FOREWORD By Greg Palast …….iv PREFACE By Danny Schechter …….vi INTRODUCTION …….ix By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …...xii AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION …..xix CHAPTER 1 Origins of the Election ….….1 Integrity Movement CHAPTER 2A Preliminary Reactions to ……..9 Election 2000: Academic/Mainstream Political CHAPTER 2B Preliminary Reactions to ……26 Election 2000: Grassroots CHAPTER 3 Havoc and HAVA ……40 CHAPTER 4 The Battle Begins ……72 CHAPTER 5 Election 2004 in Ohio ……99 and Elsewhere CHAPTER 6 Reactions to Election 2004, .….143 the Scandalous Firing of the Federal
    [Show full text]
  • State Politics & Policy – Voter Registration in Florida the Effects
    State Politics & Policy Quarterly http://spa.sagepub.com/ The Effects of House Bill 1355 on Voter Registration in Florida Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith State Politics & Policy Quarterly published online 5 June 2013 DOI: 10.1177/1532440013487387 The online version of this article can be found at: http://spa.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/22/1532440013487387 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Political Science Association Additional services and information for State Politics & Policy Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://spa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://spa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 5, 2013 What is This? Downloaded from spa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on June 25, 2013 SPAXXX10.1177/1532440013487387State Politics & Policy QuarterlyHerron and Smith 487387research-article2013 Article State Politics & Policy Quarterly XX(X) 1 –27 The Effects of House Bill © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: 1355 on Voter Registration sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1532440013487387 in Florida sppq.sagepub.com Michael C. Herron1 and Daniel A. Smith2 Abstract In mid-2011, the Florida state legislature passed House Bill 1355 (HB 1355) and in so doing placed new regulations on community organizations that historically have helped eligible Floridians register to vote. Among the legal changes promulgated by this bill were new regulations on the operations of groups like the League of Women Voters and a new oath, warning of prison time and fines, that voter registration agents were required to sign.
    [Show full text]
  • Elections Cover-Up 3/1/18, 846 PM
    Elections Cover-up 3/1/18, 846 PM Elections Cover-up A Two-Page Summary of Revealing Media Reports With Links The concise excerpts from media articles below reveal major problems with the elections process. This is not a partisan matter. Fair elections are crucial to all who support democracy. Few have compiled this information in a way that truly educates the public on the great risk of using electronic voting machines. Spread the word and be sure to vote. MSNBC News, 9/28/11, It only takes $26 to hack a voting machine Researchers from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have developed a hack that, for about $26 and an 8th-grade science education, can remotely manipulate the electronic voting machines used by millions of voters all across the U.S. Researchers ... from Argonne National Laboratory's Vulnerability Assessment Team demonstrate three different ways an attacker could tamper with, and remotely take full control, of the e-voting machine simply by attaching what they call a piece of "alien electronics" into the machine's circuit board. The $15 remote control ... enabled the researchers to modify votes from up to a half-mile away. CNN News, 9/20/06, Voting Machines Put U.S. Democracy at Risk Electronic voting machines...time and again have been demonstrated to be extremely vulnerable to tampering and error. During the 2004 presidential election, one voting machine...added nearly 3,900 additional votes. Officials caught the machine's error because only 638 voters cast presidential ballots. In a heavily populated district, can we really be sure the votes will be counted correctly? A 2005 Government Accountability Office report on electronic voting confirmed the worst fears: "There is evidence that some of these concerns have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes." New York Times, 9/5/06, In Search of Accurate Vote Totals A recent government report details enormous flaws in the election system in Ohio's biggest county, problems that may not be fixable before the 2008 election.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Box Voting Report
    330 SW 43rd St Suite K PMB-547 Renton WA 98055 425-793-1030 – [email protected] http://www.blackboxvoting.org The Black Box Report SECURITY ALERT: July 4, 2005 Critical Security Issues with Diebold Optical Scan Design Prepared by: Harri Hursti [email protected] Special thanks to Kalle Kaukonen for pre-publication review On behalf of Black Box Voting, Inc. A nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501c(3) consumer protection group for elections Executive Summary The findings of this study indicate that the architecture of the Diebold Precinct-Based Optical Scan 1.94w voting system inherently supports the alteration of its basic functionality, and thus the alteration of the produced results each time an election is prepared. The fundamental design of the Diebold Precinct-Based Optical Scan 1.94w system (AV OS) includes the optical scan machine, with an embedded system containing firmware, and the removable media (memory card), which should contain only the ballot box, the ballot design and the race definitions, but also contains a living thing – an executable program which acts on the vote data. Changing this executable program on the memory card can change the way the optical scan machine functions and the way the votes are reported. The system won’t work without this program on the memory card. Whereas we would expect to see vote data in a sealed, passive environment, this system places votes into an open active environment. With this architecture, every time an election is conducted it is necessary to reinstall part of the functionality into the Optical Scan system via memory card, making it possible to introduce program functions (either authorized or unauthorized), either wholesale or in a targeted manner, with no way to verify that the certified or even standard functionality is maintained from one voting machine to the next.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Anti-Blackness
    “Anti-racism is the active process of identifying and KENNEDY SCHOOLHARVARD JOURNAL OF AFRICAN AMERICAN POLICY HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational JOURNAL OF AFRICAN AMERICAN POLICY A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably.” - NAC International Perspectives: Women and Global Solidarity The Institutional Anti-Racism & Accountability (IARA) Project at Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy works at the intersection of community programs, academia, and policy to address intellectual and practical questions related to anti-racist institutional change. Our vision is to achieve industry-wide certification standards for all forms of diversity/bias/ antiracism consulting and implementation. 2019 - 20 VOLUME20 Anti-Blackness in Policy Making: Learn more at Learning from the Past to Create a Better Future shorensteincenter.org/iara 2019-20 Volume HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL JOURNAL OF AFRICAN AMERICAN POLICY “Anti-Blackness in Policy Making: Learning from the Past to Create a Better Future” 2019-20 Volume Support the Journal Te Harvard Kennedy School Journal of African American Policy (ISSN# 1081- 0463) is the second-oldest student-run review published annually by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. An annual subscription is $20 for individuals and $40 for libraries and institutions. Additional copies of past volumes may be available for $20 each from the Subscriptions Department, Harvard Kennedy School Journal of African American Policy, 79 JFK Street #16, Cambridge, MA 02138. Donations provided in support of the Harvard the Harvard Kennedy School Journal of African American Policy are tax-deductible as a nonproft gift under the John F.
    [Show full text]
  • EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS Mitchell Block James Fadiman
    Direct Cinema Limited in association with Abramorama & Mitropoulous Films presents a Concentric Media production STEALING AMERICA: Vote by Vote Narrated by Peter Coyote Directed & Produced by Dorothy Fadiman Production Notes 90 Minutes, Color, 35 mm www.StealingAmericaTheMovie.com www.StealingAmericaTheMovie.com/GetActive PUBLIC RELATIONS DISTRIBUTION: PUBLIC RELATIONS LOS ANGELES Direc t Cinema Limited NEW YORK Fredell Pogodin & Associates P.O. Box 10003 Falco Ink Office: (323) 931 7300 Santa Moni ca, CA 90410 Office: (212) 445 7100 Fredell Pogodin Office: (31 0) 636 8200 Mobile: (917) 225 7093 [email protected] Fax: (310 ) 636 8228 Shanno n Tre usch Bradley Jones Mitchell Block [email protected] [email protected] mw block@ gmail.c om Steven Beeman Kierste n Jo hnson [email protected] [email protected] BOOKING INFORMATION: BOOKING INFORMATION: WEST & NATIONAL EAST & NATIONAL Mitropoulos Films Abramorama Office: (310) 273 1444 Office: (914) 273 9545 Mobile: (310) 567 9336 Mobile: (917) 566 7175 MJ Peckos Richard Abramowitz [email protected] [email protected] Direct Cinema Limited, P.O. Box 10003, Santa Monica, California Phone (310) 636-8200; E-Mail: [email protected] CREDITS PRODUCER & DIRECTOR Dorothy Fadiman NARRATOR Peter Coyote MUSIC Laurence Rosenthal EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS Mitchell Block James Fadiman CO-PRODUCERS Bruce O'Dell Carla Henry VIDEOGRAPHY Matthew Luotto & Rick Keller PRINCIPAL EDITORS Katie Larkin Matthew Luotto Xuan Vu Ekta Bansal Bhargava CONSULTING EDITORS Pam Wise, A.C.E. Kristin Atwell ASSISTANT EDITORS Roopa Parameswaran & Joanne Dorgan MOTION GRAPHICS Digital Turbulence Douglas DeVore & Wendy Van Wazer Laura Green & Matthew Luotto ADDITIONAL VIDEOGRAPHY Fletcher Holmes, Mike Kash, Jim Heddle, Steve Longstreth, Andy Dillon, David Frenkel William Brandon Jourdan, Domenica Catalano ASSOCIATE PRODUCERS Katie Larkin Robert Carrillo Cohen James Q.
    [Show full text]
  • April 4, 2006
    BOARD OF SUPEftVlSORS 200~Ej,n 2~~p 2: 1 q March 22, 2006 Dear & &+d w In light of the lawsuit just filed (see attached) against the purchase and use of Diebold touchscreen DREs (Direct Record Electronic) in the state of California, I am counting on you to find alternative systems for use in this year's elections. The Diebold touchscreen DREs were already decertified once on ample evidence in 2004, and the stack of evidence against their use has only grown since that time. It would be irresponsible for your county to commit taxpayer dollars and citizen votes to these failing machines under such uncertain conditions. The Secretary of State made it clear in his conditional certification of the Diebold TSX that he is passing responsibility off to the counties, and to the vendors. In lay terms, our Secretary of State is leaving you "holding the bag." Please choose another option that voters can actually trust, the disability community can access, and taxpayers can stomach. As a taxpayer, I am concerned about the irresponsible cost to counties that these touchscreen DREs represent. According to one seasoned Election Chief in Florida, Ion Sancho, it will cost him $1.8 million to adequately serve his county on paper ballots optically scanned, in combination with a ballot-marking device to meet the disability access requirements of the Help America Vote Act. To provide the same voter capacity for his county using touchscreen DREs, Mr. Sancho would have to spend $5 million. This may make sense to the vendors, but it certainly doesn't make sense to our a1reab.y strapped county budgets.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Club Leadership, on Jan 16, 2017, the Santa Clara
    Democratic Club Leadership, On Jan 16, 2017, the Santa Clara County Democratic Club approved the attached resolution calling for our Democratic Party “to aggressively press for changes needed to achieve more democratic voting procedures”. In other words, stop ignoring voter suppression and rigged vote-counting machines, and start doing something about both. During discussion of the Resolution, most people acknowledged that voter suppression was widespread. However, many questioned the rigging of vote-counting machines. In response to those doubters, the following supplemental information was compiled. – “Red Shift” is the tendency of voting-counting machines to report more votes for the Republican candidates than the exit polls predict. Anecdotal stories of friends/relatives who, rather than simply refuse to answer an exit poll, chose to lie to pollsters raises this question: Why doesn't that happen in other countries where exit polls are considered the "gold standard"? And if Trump voters are such liars, does that also apply to Hillary's voters during the primary. If so that would explain the "red shift" that propelled her to victory in the 2016 Primaries in Red states. Find the details in the analysis of the Democratic primaries from Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University (The Netherlands) and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University (U.S.A.). On the 4th/last page is a chart followed by an Appendix link. The graphic below (from page 3 of that Appendix) shows how red shift affected Clinton’s votes. Here’s the (funny) Redacted video
    [Show full text]