James's blog

The latest tempest in the GOP tea cup is the concern that government is imposing rules on religions. At issue is the claim that health plans offered by religious organizations must cover contraceptives in the same way that other prescriptions are covered.

That claim is a lie. Religious organizations that want to be exempted from the contraception requirements already get those exemptions easily.

But given the brouhaha, it's clear that more clarity is in order. The time has come to defund all religions completely. They should have full freedom to do whatever they want, and should receive no grants, no matching funds, no tax exemptions, no nothing from taxpayers. And along the way, we can also agree to ban prayers in public schools or public meetings, gods on coins, mangers in front of court houses, and any involvement whatsoever by religions in official government affairs.

If religions want to be free from the burdens of government policy, let them be free from government funding too. Let's draw a bright line between Caesar and god. Never the twain shall meet.

That's a really big if, Rob.

If Speaker Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Berger have any interest in doing the right thing, they should cancel the special legislative session scheduled for next Thursday immediately.

Truth is, none of the Tarheel Taliban has any interest in doing the right thing. They're on a whacked-out power trip ... and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

An in-depth and excellent look at the GOP's redistricting strategy, written by Ari Berman at The Nation.

The use of race in redistricting is just one part of a broader racial strategy used by Southern Republicans to not only make it more difficult for minorities to vote and to limit their electoral influence but to pass draconian anti-immigration laws, end integrated busing, drug-test welfare recipients and curb the ability of death-row inmates to challenge convictions based on racial bias ... The new Southern Strategy, it turns out, isn’t very different from the old one.

The best email received today on the case involving the Republican voter suppression plan redistricting scheme.
______________________________________________________

The political law practice group of Bailey & Dixon, LLP made the following observations regarding the consolidated redistricting lawsuits (Dickson v. Rucho and NAACP v State) in Wake County Superior Court today:

The 3-judge panel in Superior Court voted to let the NC’s two big redistricting lawsuits go forward on most of their causes of action.

The State had moved to dismiss all claims in the cases of Dickson v. Rucho and NAACP v State. The judges dismissed the motion with regard to most of the claims.

The Dickson suit was brought by a collection individual plaintiffs, many of them current and former Democratic officeholders. Their counsel is Poyner & Spruill, lead by Eddie Speas. The NAACP suit was brought by several nonprofit groups, including Democracy North Carolina and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. Their attorneys include Anita Earls, Adam Stein, and Irv Joyner.

Together, the two lawsuits alleged 37 claims. Of those, the court dismissed 15 and allowed 22 to proceed. But the 37 claims are better understood if grouped into a few big categories.

The court dismissed the following categories of claims:

1990s Statutes Against Precinct Splitting. The court dismissed claims in both suits that splitting precincts violated two statutes enacted in the 1990s to prohibit splitting precincts in the drawing of legislative and congressional districts. Those statutes, GS 120-2.2 and 163-261.2, were denied Voting Rights Act preclearance back then, but the plaintiffs argued that the statutes are still good law in the 60 counties not covered by Section 5 of the VRA. The judges didn’t buy that.

The “Good of the Whole.” The court dismissed claims in both suits that unnecessarily splitting precincts, municipalities, and other communities of interest were violations of Article I, Sec. 2 of the State Constitution. That provision says “all government of right originates from the people, is founded on their will only, and is instituted for the good of the whole.” The NAACP suit alleged that the unnecessary splitting and the non-compact districts were the product of excessive partisanship. The Dickson suit did not frame its “good of the whole” argument in quite that way. Dickson specifically said removing Asheville from the 11th congressional district was a “good of the whole” violation. But regardless of how it was framed, the “good of the whole” argument was another one the judges didn’t buy.

Arbitrary and Capricious. The court dismissed claims in Dickson that splitting precincts, towns, etc., violated Article I, Section 19 of the State Constitution by depriving plaintiffs of their rights without due process (in State constitutional terms without “the law of the land”) and because such splits were done arbitrarily and capriciously without bearing a rational relationship to a valid objective. However, the judges let stand another set of claims in Dickson that sounds similar. Those claims are discussed below.

The court did not dismiss – that is, allowed to go forward – the following categories of claims:

Racial Classifications. The court let stand claims in both suits that using race without justification to divide voters in districts and split precincts violated provisions of both US and State Constitutions. The NAACP suit treated this more nearly as a Shaw v. Reno claim than did Dickson. In NAACP, the racial classifications were pled as a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and of Article I, Sec. 19, of the State Constitution and Shaw is mentioned. Dickson cites the 14th Amendment and Article I, Sec. 19, as the violated provisions without highlighting either Equal Protection or Shaw in the same way. The judges spared the racial classification claims in both lawsuits, letting them go forward. They affect both legislative and congressional plans.

Whole County Provision. The court let stand claims in both suits that the number of counties split in the House and Senate plans violated the provisions of Article II, Secs. 3 and 5, of the State Constitution saying that counties cannot be divided in the drawing of House and Senate districts. Those provisions were interpreted by the State Supreme Court in its 2002 Stephenson v. Bartlett decision. In oral argument, the plaintiffs argued that the enacted plans split more counties –without compelling state interest –than alternative plans, and therefore violated the Whole County Provision. The State argued that Stephenson measured compliance not by the number of split counties but by the number of groupings of counties. That will probably be a key argument going forward in the case. This affects only legislative, not congressional, plans.

Abridging the Right to Vote. The court let stand two claims (appearing only in Dickson) that excessive splitting of precincts in House and Senate plans abridges the right of people over 18 to vote without compelling reasons narrowly tailored. The State constitutional provisions cited are Article VI, Sec. 1, (Right to Vote) and Article I, Sec. 19 (no denial of rights without the Law of the Land). These are the claims mentioned above as similar to claims that the court dismissed. In Dickson they are claims only against the Senate and House plans, not the congressional.

An excellent editorial in the New York Times, confirming the pattern of national embarrassments for our Republican "leaders."

This bias is not news in North Carolina. Since colonial times into recent decades, racial prejudice has been a huge factor in the imposition of death sentences in the state. The Racial Justice Act, a response to that terrible history, uses statistical studies in regulating the death penalty, as the Supreme Court said legislatures could properly do in a 1987 case. Opponents of the law are battling to repeal it and have scheduled a hearing on it this week. The evidence of gross racial bias presented in Mr. Robinson’s case calls for commuting his sentence — but also for abolishing the death penalty in North Carolina.

It's a pretty sad day in the Old North State when captains of industry and business are silent on Republican efforts to discriminate against their workers. And sadder still that they have to look to the CEO of Goldman Sachs as a role model.

Help build the list of North Carolina CEOs who put political expedience ahead of the rights of their workers. Follow me below the fold.

It's sad enough on the surface. Public schools shriveling to dust while for-profit charters skim taxpayer dollars at a growing clip. Sadder still, it's a self inflicted wound and a failure of political and public education leadership.

As a business strategist, I've seen the scenario many times. An entrenched monopoly defends its traditional business model, circling the wagons to stave off competitors. Meanwhile, nimble and aggressive organizations sense opportunity and exploit it. That's what's happening with charter schools today, and if leaders in the education establishment want to know who to blame, they should look in the mirror.

It was bad enough that Republican leaders like Skip Stam put their (considerable) weight behind getting their little buddy elected to the Apex town council. It didn't matter that the guy had been arrested for drunk driving, he had friends in high places. So it comes as no surprise that Scott Lassiter is looking for a way to avoid taking responsibility for his actions.

But hey, at least he's creative.