DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 4:15-cv-03292-SBA Document 102 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 24 1 SUZANNE NOVAK,* New York Registration No. 292574 JONATHAN SMITH, California State Bar No. 286941 2 Earthjustice 48 Wall Street, 19th Floor 3 New York, NY 10005 snovak@earthjustice.org 4 jjsmith@earthjustice.org Tel: 212-845-7376/Fax: 212-918-1556 5 * Admitted pro hac vice 6 MARIANNE L. ENGELMAN LADO,* New York Registration No. 2212579 Yale Law School 7 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 8 marianne.engelman-lado@ylsclinics.org Tel: (203) 432-2184 9 * Admitted pro hac vice 10 HEATHER M. LEWIS, State Bar No. 291933 Earthjustice 11 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 12 hlewis@earthjustice.org Tel: 415-217-2000/Fax: 415-217-2040 13 Counsel for Plaintiffs 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISION 17 18 CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ) Case No. 4:15-cv-03292-SBA ENERGY, ASHURST BAR/SMITH ) 19 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, CITIZENS ) FOR ALTERNATIVES TO RADIOACTIVE ) PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 20 DUMPING, SAINT FRANCIS PRAYER ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CENTER, SIERRA CLUB and MICHAEL ) 21 BOYD ) Hearing: June 14, 2017 ) Time: 1:00 p.m. 22 Plaintiffs, ) Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong ) Place: Courtroom 210 23 vs. ) ) 24 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY and SCOTT PRUITT, ) 25 in his official capacity as Administrator of the ) Environmental Protection Agency, ) 26 ) Defendants. ) 27 ) ) 28 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment CARE v. EPA, Case No. 4:15-cv-03292- SBA Case 4:15-cv-03292-SBA Document 102 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 24 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................III 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1 4 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 5 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2 6 I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR FIRST 7 FIVE CLAIMS BECAUSE EPA’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY DEADLINES IS BEYOND DISPUTE. ..............................................................................2 8 II. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR SIXTH 9 CLAIM OF A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD 10 ACTION. .............................................................................................................................5 11 III. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. ...........................................................................................10 12 A. The Court Can and Should Grant Plaintiffs Declaratory Relief for All Claims. ...10 13 14 B. The Court Should Grant Injunctive Relief for the CARE and Sierra Club Complaints, and for all of Plaintiffs’ Pending and Future Title VI Complaints. ...13 15 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment CARE v. EPA, Case No. 4:15-cv-03292- SBA ii Case 4:15-cv-03292-SBA Document 102 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 24 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Heckler, 5 789 F.2d 931, 943 n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................................12 6 Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802 (1974) .........................................................................................................................6 7 American Center for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 8 No. CV 16-2516 (JEB), 2017 WL 1377909 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2017) ........................................6, 13 9 Arik v. Astrue, 10 No. C 08-5564 SBA, 2010 WL 6490066 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) ............................................10 11 Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977) .......................................................................................................................12 12 Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 13 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2002) .........................................................................................................12 14 Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Badgley, 15 309 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................................10 16 Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Troyer, No. Civ. S-05-1633, 2006 WL 464084 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006) ................................................12 17 Campos v. Nail, 18 43 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1994) ...........................................................................................................6 19 Center for Biological Diversity v. Brennan, 20 571 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Armstrong, J.) ................................................................10 21 Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) ...........................................................................................................................12 22 23 Citizens Task Force on Timber Sales Review v. U.S. Forest Service, 894 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished) ..................................................................................12 24 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 25 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) ...................................................................................................................14 26 Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush, 27 310 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) .........................................................................................................8 28 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment CARE v. EPA, Case No. 4:15-cv-03292- SBA iii Case 4:15-cv-03292-SBA Document 102 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 24 1 Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2010) .................................................................................................7 2 DL v. District of Columbia, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016), appeal docketed, No. 3 16-7076 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2016) ................................................................................................11 4 DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc., 5 745 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...........................................................................................9 6 Ensco Offshore Co. v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 10-1941, 2011 WL 121936 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2011), vacated in 7 irrelevant part, 781 F. Supp. 2d 332 (E.D. La. 2011) .................................................................7, 8 8 Fixel v. Nevada Legislative Commission, 9 940 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished) ..................................................................................9 10 Garcia v. McCarthy, 649 F. App’x 589 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................14, 15 11 Garcia v. McCarthy, 12 No. 13-CV-03939, 2014 WL 187386 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2014) ...................................................14 13 Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 14 811 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................5, 6, 9 15 High Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................................8 16 17 Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) .........................................................................................................10 18 Independent Training & Apprenticeship Program v. California Dep’t of Industrial 19 Relations, 730 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................3, 4 20 21 McElroy Electronics Corp. v. F.C.C., 86 F.3d 248 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ...........................................................................................................3 22 Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 23 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................................3 24 Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1994) .........................................................................................................12 25 26 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 542 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................................2 27 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 28 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................................................11 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment CARE v. EPA, Case No. 4:15-cv-03292- SBA iv Case 4:15-cv-03292-SBA Document 102 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 24 1 Nevada Association of Counties. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 3:13-cv-00712, 2015 WL 1130982 (D. Nev. Mar. 12, 2015), aff’d, No. 15- 2 15620, 2017 WL 1208591 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2017) ..........................................................................8 3 New Hampshire v. Maine, 4 532 U.S. 742 (2001)
Load more
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

206 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • The Economics of Water and Land Resource Use by Oluwagbemiga
    The Economics of Water and Land Resource Use by Oluwagbemiga Abiodun Ojumu A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama December 18, 2009 Keywords: Recreational fishing, Negative binomial, Economic impact, Recreation demand, Bio-economic, Optimization model Copyright 2009 by Oluwagbemiga Abiodun Ojumu Approved by Diane Hite, Co-Chair, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics Deacue Fields, Co-Chair, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics Asheber Abebe, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Statistics Valentina Hartarska, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics Abstract Natural resource economics deals with the supply, demand, and the management of the earth’s natural resources. It brings together different broad areas in human economics, earth science, and natural ecosystems to create better understanding of the natural resources in order o develop sustainable ways of managing them to ensure their availability to future generations. Natural resources provide services that respond to market forces, but the right mix of these resources have to be employed in order to optimize the value that they provide. This dissertation focuses on the economics of water and land resources, using economic and biophysical models to show how these resources can be better used to optimize the services that they provide. To do this, this dissertation uses three essays. The first essay uses survey responses from randomly selected anglers in the 2006/2007 recreational fishing season in Alabama in a travel cost model to estimate their consumer surpluses and total willingness to pay for this type of recreation. With some contingent valuation questions in the survey, used with the travel cost model, the study shows that anglers’ willingness to pay for recreational visits will increase if the quality of the recreational fishing sites are improved.
    [Show full text]
  • Component #1: Data Analysis Stakeholder Involvement the Special Education Services (SES) Section of the Alabama State Department
    Component #1: Data Analysis Stakeholder Involvement The Special Education Services (SES) Section of the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) elicited broad stakeholder input to develop the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). With the assistance of stakeholders who represented parents, advocacy organizations, public and private school personnel, institutions of higher education (IHEs), multiple offices within the ALSDE, and other state agency staff, the SES Section has collected and analyzed performance data for students with individualized education programs (IEPs) in order to identify a state- identified measurable result (SIMR) pursuant to the new Indicator 17 requirement from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The data analyzed include information from the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) indicators as well as compliance monitoring data, 618 data collections, and other state-reported data (e.g., EDFacts submitted data) over the past several years. The ALSDE staff with broad stakeholder input examined data from the SPP/APR indicators and 618 data collections in order to determine longitudinal trends and patterns. While Alabama has met and exceeded most of its SPP/APR targets for the past several years, particularly within compliance indicators, the ALSDE acknowledges that the need for improvement in results areas is clearly indicated. In data drill-down activities, the ALSDE staff and stakeholders determined key areas to consider: improving graduation rates, narrowing the achievement
    [Show full text]
  • Circuits of Power in Alabama's Immigration Politics: Labor Justice and Corporate Social Responsibility
    Circuits of Power in Alabama's Immigration Politics: Labor Justice and Corporate Social Responsibility Elizabeth C. S. Jamison Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Alliance for Social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought Barbara Ellen Smith, Chair Patricia M. Nickel Max O. Stephenson, Jr. Richard E. Wokutch October 28, 2015 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Power, Immigration Policy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Critical Theory, Race, Labor Justice, State Politics Copyright E. C. S. Jamison (2015) Circuits of Power in Alabama's Immigration Politics: Labor Justice and Corporate Social Responsibility Elizabeth C. S. Jamison ABSTRACT At the time of its debate and passage in 2010-2011, Alabama’s immigration law evoked support and opposition from across the state and nation. Despite the outcry, the Alabama business community projected a pronounced public “silence.” This silence was particularly curious because of the law’s clear and intended goal of self-deportation of Latinos who are a significant labor source for Alabama agri-businesses and food processing industries. The key question for this dissertation is: Why did the poultry processing industry, which has high populations of Latino employees and a significant industrial presence in Alabama, stay publicly silent despite a predictable impact on their labor supply? This qualitative analysis used the lens of the circuits of power model to interrogate this question. The findings indicate that Alabama poultry processors found themselves susceptible to the same opportunities and challenges as any other social actor confronted with the racialized, politicized, and historically contingent challenges facing Latino labor in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in Alabama Gbenga Ojumu Prairie View A&M University, Oaojumu@Pvamu.Edu
    Professional Agricultural Workers Journal Volume 3 5 Number 2 Professional Agricultural Workers Journal 4-6-2016 Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in Alabama Gbenga Ojumu Prairie View A&M University, oaojumu@pvamu.edu Diane Hite Auburn University Deacue Fields Auburn University, fieldde@auburn.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://tuspubs.tuskegee.edu/pawj Part of the Agricultural Economics Commons, and the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Ojumu, Gbenga; Hite, Diane; and Fields, Deacue (2016) "Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in Alabama," Professional Agricultural Workers Journal: Vol. 3: No. 2, 5. Available at: http://tuspubs.tuskegee.edu/pawj/vol3/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Tuskegee Scholarly Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in Professional Agricultural Workers Journal by an authorized administrator of Tuskegee Scholarly Publications. For more information, please contact craig@mytu.tuskegee.edu. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RECREATIONAL FISHING IN ALABAMA *Gbenga Ojumu1, Diane Hite2, and Deacue Fields2 1Prairie View A&M University, Prairie, TX 2Auburn University, Auburn, AL Email of lead author: oaojumu@pvamu.edu Abstract Anglers’ direct mail survey data were used with IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), input- output system, to estimate the economic impact of recreational fishing in Alabama and the Alabama Black Belt. Separate economic impacts are analyzed for the Black Belt and the State; and direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts were estimated for government revenues, income, and employment. Possible increases in these impacts were also estimated for hypothetically improved recreational fishing sites, using the ‘ideal’ hypothetical site characteristics. The results showed a direct total value added impact of $102.5m; indirect impact of $24.7m, and an induced impact of $8.3m, which all add up to a total impact of $135.5m in total value added to the State.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report State Committee of Public Health
    ANNUAL REPORT STATE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC HEALTH Jorge A. Juan Donald E. Alsip, MD Johnson, MD Williamson, MD Chair Vice Chair Secretary Kenneth W. James G. Edward C. Richard M. Steven P. Aldridge, MD Davis, MD Facundus, MD Freeman, MD Furr, MD J. Daniel B. Jerome David P. Paul M. George C. “Buddy” Gifford, MD Harrison, MD Herrick, MD Nagrodzki, MD Smith, Jr., MD Council On Animal and Council on Dental Health Council on Health Costs, Council on Prevention of Environmental Health Administration and Organization Disease and Medical Care Jim W. Richard A. Kean, Linda U. Charlotte Benefield, DVM DDS, MD Jordan Wynn, CRNP VALUE STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS The purpose of the Alabama Department Letter to the Governor ..................................................2 of Public Health is to provide caring, high Bureau of Communicable Disease ...............................4 quality, and professional services for the improvement and protection of the public’s Center for Emergency Preparedness ..........................13 health through disease prevention and Office of Emergency Medical Services andT rauma ....15 the assurance of public health services to Bureau of Health Promotion and Chronic Disease ....16 resident and transient populations of the state regardless of social circumstances or the Bureau of Clinical Laboratories .................................30 ability to pay. Bureau of Environmental Services ..............................36 The Department of Public Health works Bureau of Professional and Support Services .............40 closely
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Appellees Alabama, Et
    Nos. 13-895, 13-1138 In the Supreme Court of the United States ────────────────────────── ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, et al. Appellants, v. ALABAMA, et al. Appellees. ────────────────────────── ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE, et al. Appellants, v. ALABAMA, et al. Appellees. ────────────────────────── On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ────────────────────────── BRIEF FOR APPELLEES ────────────────────────── LUTHER STRANGE Alabama Attorney General Andrew L. Brasher* Solicitor General Dorman Walker Megan A. Kirkpatrick Deputy Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General BALCH & BINGHAM LLP John J. Park, Jr. Post Office Box 78 Deputy Attorney General Montgomery, AL 36101 OFFICE OF ALA. ATT’Y GEN. (334) 269-3138 501 Washington Avenue dwalker@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 Counsel for Appellees abrasher@ago.state.al.us Gerald Dial, Alabama Senator, and Jim Counsel for Appellees McClendon, Alabama Alabama and Jim Bennett, Representative Alabama Secretary of State October 9, 2014 *Counsel of Record i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Appeal No. 13-1138 and Appeal No. 13-895 have been consolidated for a single argument. This brief addresses the following questions: 1. Whether the plaintiffs proved that Alabama’s legislative redistricting plans for the House and Sen- ate unconstitutionally classify black voters by race on a statewide basis, even though they did not show that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. 2. Whether the plaintiffs in Appeal No. 13-1138 have standing to challenge the House and Senate plans. ii PARTIES All parties are listed in the two appellants’ briefs. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Report
    Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice EVALUATING FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN STATE DEATH PENALTY SYSTEMS: The Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Report An Analysis of Alabama’s Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices “A system that takes life must first give justice.” John J. Curtin, Jr., Former ABA President June 2006 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice EVALUATING FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN STATE DEATH PENALTY SYSTEMS: The Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Report An Analysis of Alabama’s Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices “A system that takes life must first give justice.” John J. Curtin, Jr., Former ABA President June 2006 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION The materials contained herein represent the assessment solely of the ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project and the Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Team and have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. These materials and any forms or agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the American Bar Association and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. Significant portions of the research were performed on Westlaw courtesy of West Group. Copyright 2006, American Bar Association ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The American Bar Association Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project) is pleased to present this publication, Ensuring Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Report.
    [Show full text]
  • DEFENDANTS' BRIEF on REMAND Dorman Walker Balch & Bingham LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: 334
    Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 263 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 178 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK ) CAUCUS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-691 v. ) (Three-Judge Court) ) THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC ) CONFERENCE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-1081 v. ) (Three-Judge Court) ) THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON REMAND Dorman Walker LUTHER STRANGE Balch & Bingham LLP Attorney General of Alabama Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Andrew L. Brasher Telephone: 334-834-6500 Solicitor General dwalker@balch.com Megan Kirkpatrick Counsel for Defendants-Intervenors, Jim Deputy Solicitor General McClendon, Gerald Dial and Randy Davis James W. Davis Misty Fairbanks Messick John J. Park, Jr. Assistant Attorneys General Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP State of Alabama 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Ste 2200 Post Office Box 300152 Atlanta, GA 30309 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 Telephone: 678-347-2200 Telephone: 334-242-7300 jjp@sbllaw.net abrasher@ago.state.al.us Counsel for the State Defendants mkirkpatrick@ago.state.al.us jimdavis@ago.state.al.us mmessick@ago.state.al.us Counsel for State Defendants Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 263 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 178 David B. Byrne, Jr. Office of the Governor 600 Dexter Avenue, Suite NB-05 Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: 334-242-7120 david.byrne@governor.alabama.gov Algert S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Readers' Perception of Newspaper Credibility, 1 Running
    Alabama Readers’ Perception of Newspaper Credibility, 1 Running Head: ALABAMA READERS’ PERCEPTION OF NEWSPAPER CREDIBILITY Alabama Newspaper Readers’ Perception of Newspaper Credibility Brett Bralley University of Alabama May 6, 2010 MC 550 – Research Methods Final Paper Alabama Readers’ Perception of Newspaper Credibility, 2 Alabama Newspaper Readers’ Perception of Newspaper Credibility In an increasingly digital world, whether or not news outlets can continue to maintain their credibility while providing information across various media is a crucial question media organizations are asking themselves. Studies have measured credibility with traditional media, examined how credibility with traditional media carries over to nontraditional forms of news delivery and related contracts to demographics. Many studies have examined credibility in news. Past research has examined how credibility perceptions relate to demographics, such as gender, income (Johnson & Kaye, 1998), race (Beaudoin & Thorson, 2005), and political party (Pew Research, 2005). Furthermore, some studies have examined credibility and how it relates to frequency of media use (Rimmer & Weaver, 1987; Kiousis, 2001). Some studies observed whether news consumers differed on how credible they perceived news depending on what medium they chose to utilize (Jo, 2005; Gunter, Campbell, Touri, Gibson, 2008). The goal of the research is to examine how credible Alabama newspaper readers rate their local newspaper and how that’s related to news use and wants from that paper as a local news source. Specifically, the study examines whether those who rate their newspaper as higher in credibility see certain types of news delivery as more important and use different delivery forms of the paper than those who rate the local newspaper as lower in credibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: Age Differences for Alternate Media Use
    RUNNING HEAD: AGE DIFFERENCES FOR ALTERNATE MEDIA USE Age Differences for Alternative Media Use Howard D. Gaddy MC 550: Research Methods Final Paper May 2010 Age Differences for Alternative Media Use, 2 Age Differences for Alternative Media Use The newspaper industry has seen remarkable changes in the last several years. Newspapers across the country are utilizing technologies that no media figure could have predicted as early as five years ago. Though the newspaper industry has kept a firm hold on its age 50 and older readers, its younger demographics are gravitating toward online and mobile delivery as their prime method of accessing news (Pew 2006). News organizations both large and small have rallied to gain a foothold on these new methods of news delivery. The New York Times, for example, created a Facebook page the day it became available and now boasts 180,000 followers. The Public Broadcasting Service recently opened an additional website called Engage, where users can post comments, upload their own video and even chat with reporters. Because of this site and other online initiatives, PBS.org now receives 877,000 daily visitors (Emmett, 2009). However, because of the quick ascension of these technologies (i.e. smartphones, Facebook and RSS feeds), little research has been conducted surveying the uses and preferences of news consumers. Newsrooms everywhere wonder which alternative method of news delivery will be a fit for which readers. With almost all forms of technology, a large variable regarding adoption and use is age. This study aims to understand the nuances of age in relation to current methods of news delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • German Guide to ALABAMA
    German Guide to ALABAMA A publication of September, 2014 Table of Contents 1. Message from AlabamaGermany Partnership 2. Message from the Governor 3. The State of Alabama 3.1 Overview 3.2 Geography 3.3 Climate/Weather 3.4 Demographics 4. Guide to Alabama Living 4.1 Sports & Leisure 4.2 Emergency Procedures 4.3 Insurance 4.4 Health Care 4.5 Weather Alerts 4.6 Financial & Banking 4.7 Housing 4.8 Utilities & Garbage 4.9 Shopping 4.10 Churches and Religion 4.11 Public Transit 4.12 Educational System 4.13 Holidays 4.14 Entertainment 4.15 Celebrations 4.16 Alcohol Sales 4.17 Etiquette 4.18 Southern Language 4.19 Volunteerism 4.20 German Restaurants, Clubs and Influence in Alabama 5. Government & Issuance 5.1 Social Security 5.2 Taxes 5.3 Automobile license 5.4 Recording Events (Birth, death, etc.) 6. Doing Business in Alabama 7. Major City Guide and Tourist Attractions 7.1 Alabama Beaches 7.2 Auburn/Opelika Area 7.3 Birmingham Area 7.4 Huntsville/Decatur & Cullman Area 7.5 Mobile Area 7.6 Montgomery Area 7.7 Pell City Area 7.8 Tuscaloosa Area 8. Appendix 8.1 AGP Board of Directors 8.2 German Companies in Alabama 8.3 Southern English Guide 1. Welcome to our beautiful state of Alabama! An interest in improving relations between Alabama and Germany began in 1993, when Mercedes-Benz began looking at Alabama as a site for its new North American plant. Many organizations, agencies, corporations and individuals joined together to present Alabama as “the” place to locate the Mercedes-Benz US International (MBUSI) car plant.
    [Show full text]
  • 50-State Report on Re-Enfranchisement – a Guide to Restoring Your Right to Vote
    50-State Report on Re-Enfranchisement – A Guide to Restoring Your Right to Vote A Resource for Individuals with Felony Convictions and Advocates who Work with Disenfranchised Communities A report issued by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Written and researched by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Acknowledgements The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law would like to thank the law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP and particularly David Adams, John Alemanni, Chris Chan, Laurisa Curran, Jim Ewing, Bruce Gray, Debbie Segal, Tywanda Harris, Afi Johnson-Parris, Janina Malone, Aleta Mills, and Michael Turton for their excellent research and writing. We would also like to thank our staff and interns for their commendable research, writing and editing. In particular, we would like to thank Cara Fineman, Anita Earls, Lori Outzs Borgen, Jon Greenbaum, Jonah Goldman, Nancy Anderson, Chiraag Bains, Daniel Savery, Dotie Joseph, Elizabeth Weyant, Emily Benfer, Eva Gunasekera, Samuel Spital, Synta Keeling, and Narendra Gosh. The importance of this report continues to grow, as we learn of more and more individuals with felony convictions from across the country who do not know whether or not they have the right to vote. We hope that this report will be distributed widely. To download individual state reports, please visit the Lawyers’ Committee’s website at www.lawyerscomm.org. RESTORE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IN ALABAMA FOR WHAT CRIMES OR TYPES OF CRIMES CAN I LOSE MY RIGHT TO VOTE? Persons convicted of crimes involving “moral turpitude” are prohibited from voting in Alabama.
    [Show full text]