DOJ Pre Clearence Submission from Guilford County in Regards To The Outdated Voting Rights Act of 1965 , SCRIBD Version Embedded

Bailout for North Carolina Cities from the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Virginia Does It N.C. Needs To Start

Reading other newspapers all over the area and also in other states like Virginia.Triadwatch came across this article from the Roanoke Times titled "Roanoke Seeks Bailout from Voting Rights Act" CLICKHERE . In the article it talks about how plenty of cities and counties all over Virginia are hiring a lawyer to plead their case that they do not need to be a part of the watch list from the justice department.. Has anyone around the triad area ever heard of a bailout of the voting rights act of 1965?

Here is a few quotes from the article in the roanoke times:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- signed into law 45 years ago Friday -- was put in place to outlaw discriminatory electoral practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests that prevented blacks and other minorities from voting.



It established federal oversight of elections, particularly in Southern states with a history of discrimination. Over the past 15 years, though, many city and county governments -- seeking ways to cut costs and save time by streamlining a lengthy federal process -- have applied to receive a "bailout" from certain sections.


Those parts require localities to receive approval from the Justice Department before taking any actions that affect voting, including moving precincts.


Seventeen counties and cities in Virginia have already received that bailout, including Salem, Botetourt County and Roanoke County. Bedford and Bedford County also are in the process of seeking a bailout from the Voting Rights Act.

then later in article there is this:

Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years in 2006, and last year the Supreme Court broadened the bailout provision to apply not just to cities and counties, but to other government jurisdictions as well. Those decisions, along with the pending need to redraw precincts for redistricting, has prompted an increasing number of bailout applications in recent years.



Alexandria lawyer Gerald Hebert has represented all of the Virginia localities seeking bailouts, starting with Fairfax in 1997.


"There's a list of things in the law that you have to prove, and they're fairly straightforward," Hebert said. "A jurisdiction that's not discriminating in its voting procedures normally has very little difficulty meeting them."


Hebert said the cost of a bailout -- about $5,000, mostly in lawyers' fees -- is quickly recouped when considering the expense to get preliminary clearance from the Justice Department to move a precinct.


"Even without lawyers, just in staff time, preclearance runs about $500," Hebert said. "If lawyers are involved, and it's a controversial or complicated one, then it can run into the thousands of dollars."


Obtaining a bailout would first require the council to take a vote in favor of pursuing the action. The city must then present data to the Justice Department demonstrating that it's eliminated any actions or devices that would discriminate against certain voters.


A three-judge panel ultimately makes a final decision on whether a locality has reached that point and is therefore entitled to be bailed out from the Voting Rights Act.


Why is this so important to cities all over North Carolina is because last year we had the Justice Department reverse the wishes of the citizens of Kinston N.C. to become a non partisan election . Here is a link to the whole situation with a post titled "U.S. Justice Department Spurns Kinston Decision on Elections" from the Carolina Journal online CLICKHERE . In the article here is a few quotes:

Sixty-four percent of Kinston voters said “yes” to a November ballot initiative that would have switched city elections from partisan to nonpartisan. The measure passed by a 4,977 to 2,819 margin, with seven of nine precincts approving the change. The DOJ decision leaves the city as one of five municipalities in North Carolina to hold partisan elections, and the only one east of Charlotte.



King, in a letter overturning the election, said the city did not meet its burden of proof that the change “has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” King’s letter went on to declare, “Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial."

This type of ruling against a city who wanted to have non partisan elections like plenty of other cities all over the state is assinine to hear but hopefully we will see more municipalities look at what is going on across the border in Virginia and start bailing out of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As you can see from the above photo it seems like only Guilford and Rockingham County are on the watch list from the Justice Department  in regards to the voting rights act in this area while surrounding counties do not have to follow. Triadwatch has been trying to find a complete list of cities and counties that have to follow this act but cannot find it online. If there is someone who can provide this information please do .

Hope the 2 articles enlighten everyone on this issue and understand what our Justice Department is doing lately.

Rep. Brad Miller Is Toast And Hopefully Gone from Guilford County When Redistricting Happens

The Washington Post had a interesting article online in regards to the redistricting of house members with the title "The most likely redistricting victims" CLICKHERE .  In the article called THE FIX Aaron Blake has a
Top 10 victims in regards to redistricting in 2011 and our gerrymandered make a seat tailored to myself
Rep. Brad Miller was #2 on the list and here is what they had to say about him,

2. Brad Miller (D-N.C.): Ten years ago, as a state senator, Miller helped draw the lines for his own district. Even Democrats admit it’s a pretty blatant gerrymander. Now that Republicans control the process, it will be easy for them to get revenge by cutting off the the skinny fingers where his district reaches into Democratic territory in Raleigh and Greensboro. Such a change would shift the district instantly into a pretty strong Republican seat. Republicans aim to pick off two or three seats in North Carolina, and none should be easier than Miller’s. (Republicans point out that Miller raised just $32,000 in the first quarter and has just $69,000 on hand — not exactly the numbers of someone gearing up to run in a very tough seat.)

It will be interesting to see what happens on the state level in regards to this issue but I have a feeling we might see Rep. Howard Coble become the only representative from Guilford County which to me would be a good thing for the residents of Guilford County.

80% in Triadwatch Poll Agree That Greensboro City Council Did Not Need To Hire A Federal Lobbyist

Triadwatch had a poll question from this past week in regards to the City of Greensboro was voting on if they wanted to hire a federal lobbyist . With a overwhelming 80% of the vote for NO to a federal lobbyist for Greensboro it is determined that the CIty of Greensboro made the right decision in not voting for wasting taxpayers money going after taxpayers money. Here is a link to what was talked about before the vote CLICKHERE

 than after the vote here is a break down on who voted yes and no for the federal lobbyist CLICKHERE

City of Greensboro DOES NOT Waste $78,000 of Taxpayers Money on Federal Lobbyist

At the City of Greensboro's 3-1-2011 meeting agenda item #38 was this

Agenda item for March 1, 2011 for City of Greensboro



38. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP to represent the City of Greensboro priorities to Federal elected officials and agencies. (Council District: all) (roll call vote) (Attachment #38 to Councilmembers) COPY OF THE PROPOSAL ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

If you would like to see what was written yesterday on this issue on TRIADWATCH CLICKHERE with a title "Greensboro N.C. Will Waste $78,000 of Taxpayers Money for a Federal Lobbyist if Approved Tuesday".

Now, we know that with a vote of 6-3 the Greensboro City Council voted DOWN the notion of wasting taxpayers money going after taxpayers money . Here are the council members who voted to NOT fund the federal lobbyist. Mayor Bill Knight, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan, Dr. Trudy Wade, Danny Thompson, Mary Rakestraw, and last but not least Zack Matheny. These council members get the award from Triad Citizens Against Government Waste for not approving this item on the agenda.

Now, let's take a look at the usual suspects on who wanted to spend $78,000 of  taxpayers money to waste on a federal lobbyist and they are T Dianne Bellamy Small, Jim Kee , and last but not Robbie Perkins . They will be awarded

                                                           TRIADWATCH EDITION

Local Real Estate Lobbyist Group Wants To Get Chummy With Greensboro Planning For Western Part of City

REALTORS,



The following is a message from Judy Stalder of TREBIC (jstalder@TREBIC.org), requesting volunteers for a project that is likely to affect all REALTORS. Please contact Stalder at the e-mail address listed above if you have any questions.


Best,





Communications Specialist
GRRA, Inc.
23 Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
(336) 854-5868


Greensboro Planning, Water Resources and Transportation Departments are beginning the process of preparing a Western Area Plan. The planning staff has requested TREBIC members to join the team working on this plan. This request shows just how important your opinion as a coalition is to the City!


Please let me know if you are interested in participating in the creation of this plan. The Plan will require coordination with Kernersville, High Point and the Piedmont Triad International Airport and take into account the Heart of the Triad Study as well as the PTI Vision Plan, so members that work in the Kernersville and High Point areas may be particularly interested in this project.


PURPOSE/AREA:


The purpose of the Western Area Plan is to identify the best and highest use of properties west of NC 68 and the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The study will also determine how to prepare the study area for future development by identifying infrastructure needs, market trends, regulatory needs and any changes to the City of Greensboro Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan and/or the Generalized Future Land Use Map (GFLUM).


TIME COMMITMENT:


A citizen information meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, March 3. The group will meet once a month for 12 to 18 months.


This e-mail was sent from Greensboro Regional Realtors Association (info@grra.org)

________________________________________________________________________________

As you see from the above email from the local lobbyist outfit called the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC), this was stated:

The planning staff has requested TREBIC members to join the team working on this plan. This request shows just how important your opinion as a coalition is to the City!

This request shows how important the lobbyist are to the city over the citizens of Greensboro that has been pointed out plenty in the past for example:

Stacking The Deck With Developers on Boards and Commissions Greensboro City Council Style, Video Embedded  CLICKHERE


or

Marlene Sanford, Greensboro Partnership, TREBIC= Stacking the Deck on Boards and Commissions CLICKHERE


or

Here is what stack the deck with trebic developers looks like on cat team CLICKHERE

or

TREBIC + RUCO = Fox Guarding Hen House  CLICKHERE


Don't take me for my word on this because we can go back to January 6, 2005 to hear what David Wharton had to say in a post called Blogging TREBIC CLICKHERE

In this post David had this to say;

But this is what TREBIC does, and it's quite up-front about the fact. In a recent half-page ad placed in local builders’ trade publications, titled “What Has TREBIC Done For You Lately?”, the group boasted that it had weakened the RUCO ordinance, the sidewalk ordinance, and local environmental legislation. It claimed it was working hard to place TREBIC supporters in important positions on appointed boards. It also boasted that it had feted members of the City Council and other elected officials at a pig-pickin’ shindig in order to curry their favor.



Gosh, thanks TREBIC

To end this post we also have to remember that sitting  Greensboro Councilman Robbie Perkins and also sitting Greensboro Councilman Zack Matheny a few years back played the land speculation game in regards to this western area of Greensboro with a post on TRIADWATCH titled Highway 68 North + Anonymous Investors + Zack and Robbie = Ethical Problems CLICKHERE  .

Let's see who the players are going to be on this western area plan committee and how much this deck is going to get stacked from our local lobbyist group TREBIC.

Greensboro Aquatic Center Budget Numbers Need To Get A Closer Look After Seeing IFYI

This is from a post back on November 23, 2009 at Guarino's blog titled "The Greensboro Aquatic Center Boondoggle" CLICKHERE

this post is from the e news from city of greensboro so in future we can come back to this post to look at what the city had to say. here is the quote



"Council fills aquatic center funding gap with hotel-motel tax funds.


At its regular meeting on Tuesday, November 17, City Council voted to fill the $6.1 million funding gap necessary to build the aquatic center at the Greensboro Coliseum with existing and future hotel-motel tax funds.


The total cost to construct the center is $16.7 million. The large majority of it will be funded with a $12 million voter-approved bond, $1.4 million of which has already been used for the center's design.

After some Council members expressed concern about funding for other Coliseum projects, Council called a special meeting for Tuesday, December 1, at 4 pm, before its regularly scheduled meeting, to conduct a public hearing on financing improvements to the Greensboro War Memorial Coliseum Complex and discuss other Coliseum-related matters. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers of the Melvin Municipal Office Building, 300 W. Washington St."


Let's see how close they come to the 16.7 million dollars, my guess is it will top 19 million.Prove me wrong robbie and zack

IFYI 02.04.11 Greensboro N.C>


Now take a look at the above ifyi from the Greensboro City Manager which has a memo on page 4 from finance director Richard Lusk on the proposed 2011-2012 bond projects . You can see under the 2008 bonds it has a bullet point for Aquatic Center- 6.0 million for the completion of the project which is under construction and currently scheduled to be completed and opened July 2011: total project budget is 19.548 million.

Where did this 19.548 million dollar number come from because as you can see from the guarino post which was taken right from the city e newsletter it was going to cost 16.7 million to construct in fall of 2009 . Then we see that the new council approves it at a cost of 18.8 million as stated below from the Greensboro News and Record on  May 5, 2010.

"For others, the groundbreaking marks the start of tangible results after the push to pass a bond worth $12 million and add another $7 million in hotel and motel tax revenue to erect the $18.8 million public facility."

So now we have it jump from 16.7 million in 2009 to 18.8 million in 2010 to now see it go to 19.548 million in the latest ifyi information from the City Manager Rashad Young. How far will this number go up?  Only time will tell but wait for the cost overruns to become a factor.

Congressman Brad Miller TIme To Get out of Guilford County

HT: Antics Road Show CLICKHERE

Please see the post by jon on this issue above. Redistricting is going to come and go as quickly as we can say go and it is very important for all involved to know how we feel. In the post at antics road show it shows the map of Congressman Brad Miller's district which goes from raleigh all the way dipping down into guilford county as well.

Here is a quote from the post

"The 13th district as drawn is an outrage and an afront to the citizens of Guilford County, that will hopefully be corrected by the current legislature."

Well said and agree 100%. It is time for Congressman Brad Miller to get out of Guilford County .

North Carolina Redistricting Court Cases from the Past 10 Years, Pender County Case Was Huge

Below is a accumulation of the past 10 years in regards to redistricting court cases in North Carolina that are very significant and one of the most important cases was the Supreme Court case in Pender County which you will see below.
HAT TIP  National Conference of State Legislatures CLICKHERE

North Carolina


Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., Feb. 20, 2002)

On February 15, 2002, four days after the Justice Department told the State that its House and Senate district plans met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, a state court ruled from the bench that the plans violated a provision of the North Carolina constitution that requires counties to be kept whole when drawing state House and Senate districts. The state court declined to enjoin use of the districts for the 2002 election, for which filings were to open on February 18, suggesting that new plans could be drawn by the General Assembly in 2003 to govern elections in 2004 and beyond.

On February 20, in its written order, the court did not discuss, distinguish, or mention the opinion of the federal district court in Cavanagh v. Brock, 577 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. N.C. 1983), that the North Carolina constitutional provision prohibiting dividing counties was unenforceable under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the 40 counties subject to that section because it was not precleared, and unenforceable in North Carolina’s other 60 counties because it was not severable. The court enjoined use of the districts for the 2002 election, but stayed its order unless and until the stay was removed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals or North Carolina Supreme Court, and also until the order was precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court requested the parties to submit a proposed deadline for the General Assembly to redraw the districts and offered to draw a remedial plan for the 2002 election if the deadline were not met and if so directed by the appellate court.


Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94P02 (N.C. Feb. 26, 2002)

Without lifting the stay of the Superior Court order holding the North Carolina State House and Senate plans enacted in 2001 to be unconstitutional as dividing too many counties, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered an expedited appeal schedule. Oral arguments were scheduled for April 4 (candidate filing for the May 7 primary was scheduled to end on March 1, mail-in absentee voting was to be underway by late-March).


Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson I), No. 94PA02, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (Apr. 30, 2002), stay denied 535 U.S. 1301 (May 17, 2002) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, in chambers)

The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court holding that North Carolina State Senate and State House plans were unconstitutional because of a state constitutional provision saying no counties could be divided, but said that the no-divided-counties provision has limited applicability. First, minority districts must be created to satisfy the Voting Rights Act. Then, counties with enough members for exact multiples of seats must be subdivided into single-member districts while respecting the outer boundary of the county. Then, groups of counties must be assembled and divided into single member districts that respect the outer boundary of the group of counties. The new plan must not cause the opportunities for minorities to regress, using the 2001 precleared plan as the benchmark. The district court was ordered to hold an expedited hearing on whether the General Assembly was capable of redrawing the districts in time for the 2002 election. If not, the district court was authorized to impose a temporary plan of its own for use in the 2002 election, subject to being precleared.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., May 31, 2002)

After the General Assembly enacted new House and Senate plans on May 17, Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins threw them out and drew maps of his own. The court’s House plan was a modification of the one adopted by the General Assembly. The court’s Senate plan was a modification of one submitted to the court by the plaintiffs.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02 (N.C. June 4, 2002)

The North Carolina Supreme Court denied the State’s request to stay enforcement of the Superior Court’s order and a motion to expedite hearing the State’s appeal. A hearing on the appeal was not likely until January, meaning that the 2002 election was likely to be run using the plans adopted by the Superior Court May 31, 2002.

Board of Elections v. United States, No. 02-1174 (D.D.C. June 27, 2002)

The complaint sought preclearance of both the North Carolina Supreme Court decision of April 30, 2002, in the Stephenson case and the interim plans adopted by the Superior Court May 31, 2002. In the complaint, the State took no position on whether the opinion in Stephenson or the interim plans should be precleared, but said that the federal court was the best forum to resolve those issues. On June 27, 2002, a three-judge court denied the State's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, saying there was no showing of irreparable harm, since the state court plan would not be implemented without Section 5 preclearance and the federal court for the Eastern District of North Carolina could further compress the election schedule to allow a second primary (presumably buying some time by having less than four weeks between the two primaries). The court declined to decide whether it had jurisdiction to issue the orders, saying that the federal court in two pending cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina, Sample v. Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 (E.D.N.C. filed June 13, 2002) and Foreman v. Bartlett, No. 01-CV-166 (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 13, 2001) would have authority to grant relief. The court noted that the Department of Justice would have a decision on the Section 5 submittals of the Stephenson case and the Jenkins plan by the week of July 8, 2002.

Sample v Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 , (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2002)

A three-judge court unanimously denied the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction to conduct the 2002 state legislative election under the precleared legislatively-enacted 2001 plan, rather than an interim state court ordered plan that was still pending Section 5 preclearance at the Department of Justice.

On July 12, 2002, the Department of Justice precleared both the new interpretation of the North Carolina constitutional requirement to preserve whole counties announced in the Stephenson decision and the new legislative districts drawn by Judge Jenkins.

Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson II), No. 94PA02-2, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (July 16, 2003)

The appeal of the May 31, 2002, decision of the Superior Court holding unconstitutional both the Senate and House plans drawn by the General Assembly was heard on the merits by the North Carolina Supreme Court on March 10, 2003. On March 14, the court certified the matter to the trial court for additional findings of fact. On April 17, 2003, the trial court certified the additional findings of fact to the Supreme Court. On July 16, 2003, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court holding both Senate and House plans invalid. It noted the trial court had found that the House plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not create a second “VRA” district in Wake County, which plaintiffs’ plan showed it was possible to do, and that the Senate plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not create “VRA” districts in Wake, Mecklenburg, and Forsyth counties that were as “effective” as those drawn by plaintiffs. No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 8-9. The trial court had found that both Senate and House plans violated the requirement of the state constitution that “[e]ach . . . district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory.” N.C Const., art. II, §§ 3(2), 5(2). No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 10. The trial court had opined that “the mathematical concept of ‘point contiguity’ does not meet the Stephenson criteria for contiguity . . . .” and held that “the term ‘contiguity,’ as used in Stephenson, means that two districts must share a common boundary that touches for a non-trivial distance . . . .” No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 15. The trial court had found that both the Senate and House plans violated the whole-county provision (WCP) of the state constitution, N.C Const., art. II, §§ 3(3), 5(3), because plaintiffs’ plan showed that it was possible to keep more counties whole without violating federal law. No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 9. The trial court had found that both the Senate and House plans violated the direction of the North Carolina Supreme Court that “non-VRA districts shall be compact” (referring to Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 383, 562 S.E.2d 377, 397 (2002) (“Stephenson I”)). Finally, the trial court had found that both plans unnecessarily divided communities of interest, No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 11-15, contrary to the mandate of Stephenson I that “communities of interest should be considered in the formation of compact and contiguous districts.” 355 N.C. at 384, 562 S.E.2d at 397.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (Apr. 22, 2004)

On November 25, 2003, along with the new legislative redistricting plan it enacted in compliance with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision of July 16, 2003, the General Assembly enacted 2003 N.C. Session Law 434, §§ 7-11, codified at N.C.G.S. §§ 1-81.1, 1-267.1, 120-2.3, and 120-2.4, which provided that venue in any action involving redistricting lies exclusively with the Superior Court, Wake County and that legal challenges to legislative redistricting plans must be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. No judge who had been a member of the General Assembly could serve on the panel. Redistricting actions pending in a court other than Superior Court, Wake County, had to be transferred to that court. If a court were to find a redistricting plan flawed, the General Assembly would have to be given an opportunity to correct any defects before the court imposed a substitute plan. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that: (1) the session law establishing three-judge panels for challenges to redistricting plans and placing venue for the challenges in Wake County could be applied to plaintiffs; (2) the three-judge panel requirement did not unconstitutionally create a new court; (3) the venue provision was constitutional; and (4) the three-judge panel requirement did not unconstitutionally infringe on the Chief Justice’s powers.


Pender County v. Bartlett, No. 103A06, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009)

The 2003 General Assembly enacted a new legislative redistricting plan, Act of Nov. 25, 2003, ch. 434, 2003 N.C. Sess. Laws (1st Extra Sess. 2003) 1313. Past election results in North Carolina had demonstrated that a legislative district with an African American voting age population of at least 38.37 percent created an opportunity for African Americans to elect a candidate of their choice. In the area that encompassed Pender and New Hanover Counties, it was possible to draw a House district with an African American voting age population in excess of that threshold. In accordance with what the General Assembly said were the requirements of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, chapter 434 divided Pender County between House District 16 and House District 18, with District 18 having an African American voting age population of 39.36 percent. Pender County sued various officials of the State Board of Elections, the General Assembly, and the executive branch, alleging that chapter 434 violated the whole-county provision (WCP) of the state constitution, N.C Const., art. II, §§ 3(3), 5(3). Defendants responded that the division of Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which trumped the State Constitution. The Chief Justice appointed a three-judge panel to consider the case. The panel denied a motion to enjoin use of chapter 434 for the 2004 election. The panel found that House District 18 was a crossover district, where African Americans enjoyed reliable support from some members of the White majority who crossed over racial lines and voted for the minority’s preferred candidate, allowing that candidate to be elected. Therefore, the panel concluded that dividing Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.


On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. It recognized four distinct types of minority districts: (1) “majority-minority” districts, (2) “coalition” districts, (3) “crossover” districts, and (4) “influence” districts. It observed that the courts of appeals in five federal circuits (4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th) had held that nothing less than a “majority-minority” district, i.e., a minority population of at least 50 percent of the voting age population, was sufficient to make out a violation of § 2, and that no circuit had held that § 2 could be satisfied by the creation of a coalition, crossover, or influence district. The Court also noted that citizenship must be considered, so that a majority of the voting age population who are citizens is required. It found the use of a “bright line rule” to be more practical than one requiring an assessment of past voting behavior and a prediction of future voting trends. It would provide the General Assembly with a safe harbor when drawing districts and foreclose marginal claims by minority groups with smaller populations. In view of the fact that the General Assembly was not scheduled to reconvene until after the close of filings for the 2008 election, the Court stayed its order requiring the General Assembly to redraw the districts until after the 2008 election.


Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009)

On appeal, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the Court held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require creation of a district in which a minority population has a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its choice if the minority would constitute less than a majority of the voting age population in the district. On the other hand, the Court said that “Our holding does not apply to cases in which there is intentional discrimination against a racial minority.” Slip op. at 15. The Court also endorsed the voluntary use of crossover districts to comply with § 2 and to maximize minority voting strength. Slip op. at 19-21. Justices Thomas and Scalia concurred in the judgment. Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented.

Our View on Redistricting: Politicians Picking Voters from USA Today

Last week the opinion section of the USA TODAY CLICKHERE had their  take on the constitutional process every 10 years called reapportionment. Below is the first sentence in the opinion piece that says it all:


.

Picture a country that calls itself a democracy but where those in charge blatantly conspire to give themselves and their buddies a near-permanent hold on political power by custom-designing the districts where they run for office.
That country is the United States

This quote above is so true in so many cases all over this country and especially in North Carolina where we had a state politician completely make his own district tailored to him in Congressman Brad Miller.  It will be interesting to see what happens all over this great country but the gerrymandering of districts all over this country needs to come to a halt or be taken away from the politicians and have a independent commission involved. I for one think that if they take the Republican and Democratic label out of the mix in making these districts then that will take care of plenty of the problems that is wrong with this process .
Let's start there then move forward.

City of Greensboro Initial Draft for 2011 State Legislative Agenda

CITY OF GREENSBORO-Initial Draft-


2011 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

CITY OF GREENSBORO LOCAL LEGISLATION (Items currently part of the Agenda)

1. S415 Appointment of City Attorney

The City will support local legislation amending the City Charter to provide that the Greensboro City Attorney be appointed by and report to the City Council. Greensboro and High Point are the only municipalities in the state in which the City Manager has authority to hire and fire the City Attorney.

2. S416 Limitation of Authority for City Manager to Authorize Service Contracts

The City will support local legislation to limit the Manager’s authority to enter into service contracts. The City will seek change to the City Charter Sec. 4.111, stating that the City

Manager’s authority to enter into contracts for the performance of services shall be according to ordinance duly adopted by City Council.

3. Utility Lien

The City will support local legislation, to become effective July 1, 2010, to amend the City Charter to repeal the City’s authority to place utility liens against the real estate of rental property when a tenant fails to pay and when the water bill is in the name of the tenant.

On October 20, 2009 Council adopted modifications in the lien law provisions utilized by the Greensboro Water Department. This passed by a vote of 7 to 1

______________________________________________________________________________

(Items under consideration for the Agenda)

4. Repeal of the Jordan Lake Rules

It is urged by Councilwoman Wade that the City lobby with other municipalities and counties to repeal or reform the Jordan Lake Rules adopted in 2010 by the General Assembly. The City and Guilford County are not considered significant contributors to the Jordan Lake water quality issues and bear an inequitable portion of the restriction and expense imposed under the regulatory overlay. If a cost benefit analysis of these rules were adopted these restrictions would be reduced or entirely curtailed.

5. Unpaid Parking Tickets and Vehicle Registration

The Council previously supported amendments to NCGS 160A-301, Parking, to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to register the vehicles of any person who owns any vehicle that has any past due unpaid parking tickets owed to the City of Greensboro.

The City of Greensboro will compile a list of all persons who own motor vehicles which have outstanding, overdue and unpaid parking tickets in the City of Greensboro. This list will be provided to the County Tax Collector. The Collector will be directed to add this list to the list of persons who have unpaid municipal or county taxes. This will provide the Tax Collector the same remedies as those provided in G.S. 20-50.4 for the collection of fines and penalties.

This is anticipated to greatly reduce the uncollected parking fines.

6. Reform of Expungement Procedure.

It is urged by Councilwoman Bellamy Small that the current procedure of expungement be reformed to increase the availability of this policy to more convicted citizens of North Carolina. Given the increased use of background checks and the increased length of time these background checks cover, an unnecessary portion of society is denied equal footing in competition for jobs. It is urged these policies be amended to make it possible to expunge more convictions after seven years from date of last conviction or incarceration.

7. Reform of Trade License Requirements.

It is urged by Councilwoman Bellamy Small that restrictions on Trade Licenses be amended to allow convicted felons to qualify for a supervised license after release from probation or incarceration. This restricted license would require supervision from a nonrestricted tradesman for a period of one year and also require no new convictions. This policy revision would encourage rehabilitation and education of convicts and probationers to reduce the likelihood of recidivisms.

8. Bullying and Harassing Behavior and Cyber-bullying.

Councilwoman Rakestraw urges the City to support strengthening of the current Cyber Bullying Law. North Carolina General Statute 115C-407.15, Bullying and Harassing Behavior, currently prohibits physical, verbal, or electronic bullying and harassment that takes place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, or on a school bus. The proposed amendment would extend the protection to prohibit bullying and harassment that arises from a relationship or contact made on school premises and continues outside of the school.

9. Increase in Motor Vehicle Revenue

Department of Transportation head Adam Fisher urges the Council to support local legislation authorizing Greensboro to increase the amount of its vehicle levy used for public transportation from ten dollars per vehicle up to but not to exceed sixteen dollars per vehicle. It is anticipated by GTA that this additional revenue would provide up to $1,152,000.00 in new funding. Upon passage of this measure, the total vehicle tax revenue paid to GTA would approximate $2,417,000.00 yearly.

Guilford County Voters: Next Time, Please Do Your Homework - A Repost For All To Remember

This is a repost from a few years ago that needs to be reiterated to plenty of voters in Guilford County. If you don't know the candidate, or haven't done the research to find out about the candidate, then your best bet is to not vote for them or the position. Because this is what happens below. This was not a shining monent for voters in Guilford County.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Scott Yost from the Rhino Times reports more on the interesting saga of the Guilford County Soil and Water Supervisor with a fake name, CLICKHERE or click on the title above.

Here is the first paragraph from this post by Scott Yost,"The man who ran in and won the Guilford County Soil and Water Conservation District supervisor race in the November 2008 election did so under a fake name: "Kirk Perkins," the winning candidate, is actually a transient whose real name is Kirk Newell."

There was an earlier post on Triadwatch on this issue: CLICKHERE

Does anyone see how this makes Guilford County voters look? As a voter, to know that just doing a little research could have prevented this from happening, or if you just took my advice back on October 29, 2008 on Triadwatch CLICKHERE with the title named "Found A Soil and Water Candidate to Vote for in Guilford County" , this could have been averted.

Let's try a new tactic in any upcoming election. If you don't know who to vote for, please don't vote in that race at all, or you might just end up with this as your representative on any board or commission.

If information comes in on how to let the state board know that Andrew Courts needs to be appointed to the commission, it will be updated.

Spot On Post from Guarino on Greensboro Partnership, and the Missing President

Joe Guarino has a new post titled "The Mystery of the Missing Chamber of Commerce President" CLICKHERE .

In the post Guarino say this:

"If Clapper was a leader with a military background, he presumably had inculcated into him a sense of honor in the context of a merit-based system. The Greensboro Partnership and Action Greensboro, however, consist of unelected elites trying to influence policy in the city of Greensboro and Guilford County according to the playbook of the Democratic Party.



I would argue that represents a culture clash. Clapper's local leaders were busy agitating for more and more public spending and bond issues, and certain local projects to be placed on the taxpayers' dime. In addition, they were crawling in bed with a corrupt PAC."

Strong words that ring true in Greensboro N.C.

Neighborhood Fights Annexation While City Threatens To Cut Off Water ,Developers Not Telling Homeowners, Does This Sound Familiar?

HAT TIP WCNC in Charlotte CLICKHERE

It looks like other cities in South Carolina are having problems with the developers signing agreements to be annexed without the knowledge of the homeowners. Check out the embedded video above and also look and see who the local reporter is because she was a part of News 2 in Greensboro if i am not mistaken.

This issue of forced annexation was also a local issue in Greensboro back in the beginning of the year with some neighborhoods out near Mcleansville  were being forced to annex into Greensboro but with a court order CLICKHERE these neighborhoods are still out in the County of Guilford.

Nightmare on Old Battleground Road in Greensboro, Repost from 8-23-2008

This below the red fold post was on Triadwatch 8-23-2008 talking about the Greensboro Landmark Project which was also in today's Greensboro News and Record front page but you can only be a subscriber to the online edition and receive it electronically.

 Also, this project was in the Greensboro Parks & Recreation fall and winter 2008 Leisure magazine which was linked in the post but the newer Leisure magazines doesn't have it in the book and online as well. Just wanted everyone to know the ramifications of this massive project and what is going to happen to Old Battleground road for all those 11,000 riders on this road.

Fox 8 also had a report here is that .

 




__________________________________________________________________________________

The newest addition of the Leisure magazine which is a guide to the Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department for the Fall-Winter 2008 has a interesting article on page 39 but it has been removed from the internet but here is a link to a pdf from the city of greensboro CLICKHERE

The project in question is called "Greensboro Landmark Project" , this is trying to make the Guilford National Military Courthouse, Tannnenbaum Historic Park, and Jaycee Park all inclusive with no drive through traffic.

Upon looking at the map it shows how this project would like to see Old Battleground Road closed to through traffic past British Lake Drive before the entrance to the National Military Park. This road in question gets about 11,000 cars a day that cut through the National Military Park to get to their homes and some like to use the park as a running and biking facility. The nightmare is looking at where all these 11,000 cars would go if this road is closed. This would mean more traffic down regular Battleground Road and if you have ever been down that road towards Horse Pen Creek Road it is over capacity at this time and to add more to the mix would be a NIGHTMARE.

Triadwatch contacted both Adam Fischer from the Greensboro Transportation and also Superintendent Cranfield from the Guilford National Military Courthouse to ask them about this project and to see if they were aware of this closing of Old Battleground Road.

Mr. Cranfield from the Military Courthouse stated that this was a proposed project. It was a long term idea to try to get back the integrity of the battlefield. As you can see from the map in that they want to get grants and funding to make all of this area enclosed and to also have a combined visitor center where it would be more towards Tannenbaum Park along New Garden Road. Some of the ideas that Mr. Cranfield talked about was to try to maybe have a major crossing on Old Battleground where they could have railroad crossings come down at a certain location so that people could cross Old Battleground Road without worrying about safety but in long term future close it all in. There are a lot of puzzle pieces missing to this project and in regards to the urban loop that will be near the Lake Brandt Road intersection with Old Battleground Road.

Mr. Fischer from the Greensboro Department of Transportation was somewhat aware of this but didn't know that it was being published in the Leisure guide of Greensboro for Fall 2008. He wanted to say that there are a lot of things that need to happen before the city can close a certain street and to close a street like this with 11,000 cars a day would mean a lot of public input before this happens and probably a lot of upgrading to the existing roads for this to happen, especially getting the urban loop done also.

It is great to see long term goals for places like the Guilford National Military Courthouse , but when you travel down Old Battleground Road and have lived at Lincoln Green Apartments and know just how many people rely on this road to get to and from places of destination, it is hard to imagine it being closed to through traffic.

It will be interesting to see the future of this project but the needs of the citizens and the integrity of the courthouse need to get together to make a great place to live , work and play.

The video below is the Battle of Guilford Courthouse a Animated Video, if you would like to see a great video , or CLICKHERE check out this 8 minute video.

Response To This Morning's Greensboro News & Record Article on RUCO Guest Column by Donna Newton

First let me say that I think Amanda Lehmert is one of the most objective and usually accurate N&R reporters. However, we all make mistakes - as I think Amanda did in her front page article this morning about RUCO CLICKHERE. According to a report delivered by City staff at the RUCO Board meeting last Thursday, the cost of RUCO for this year will be $547,454 - NOT $980,000, so I'm trying to find out where Amanda got her number. I think staff gave a detailed budget to the Board that I didn't come away with in my packet. I'll be checking this out on Monday.


I will also say that RUCO has been wrought with administrative error since the beginning, primarily because of a very poor records keeping system. It's old and and it's cumbersome and it just doesn't work in some instances. However, despite all those hurdles, RUCO is accomplishing its purpose.

Second, the Inspections Dept. has reduced numbers of staff over the years since RUCO was put in place. They used to spend their time on the hoard of complaints - more than 2000 complaints in 2003 - down to 459 last year. Also, the number of properties they are now able to take to the minimum housing commission and actually get remedied has increased from 17 in 2003 to 105 this year. They used to spend their time chasing their tales trying to get the houses before the commission.

Third, much of the rental housing stock has been RUCO certified and we revised the ordinance some time ago so that a RUCO is for the life of the property unless there is a complaint. New rentals and those not yet inspected do, of course, have to be inspected. Plus, there is a sampling requirement of 2% of the rental stock as a sentinel effect program. Only 10% of those sampling inspections have violations. That's because they get plenty of notice that they are going to be inspected. The long notice is a good thing because after all, what we want to happen is that they fix their units. We are not out to have people fined. I think the "only 10%" is a good thing.

Finally, sub-standard units have decreased from 1,679 in 2003 to 705 last year.

This program is working in so many ways. We should not let it be undermined and we should fix the administrative problems.

I was appointed to the committee that is going to bring a recommendation to the RUCO board to take to Council. I will say that one thing I will push for is a change in the makeup of the RUCO board. It is currently almost all landlords with only one housing representative. Landlords need to be on that board, but so do more of us who know the rental housing stock in Greensboro, but do not profit from it.


Donna Newton
Greensboro Neighborhood Congress

Winston-Salem N.C. Northern Beltway Nightmare , Guest Column by Cathy Poole

Winston-Salem N.C. Beltway Map from NCDOT




Winston-Salem Northern Beltway: Project# R-2247, U-2579, U2579-A


The North Carolina Department of Transportation insists on employing the discredited 1950s approach of condemn, bulldoze, destroy, and pave as clearly referenced in the plans for the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. This makes no sense in the 21st Century. Consider the following facts:

Existing infrastructure is falling down around us. Local headlines remind commuters of 800 Triad bridges listed as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Citizens will be forced to drive over crumbling bridges to reach new multi-million dollar stadiums. Board of Transportation member, Nancy Dunn commented that she hopes the bridge disaster in Minneapolis helps galvanize the attention of state leaders. Davidson County Commissioner Max Walser laments, “We don’t have enough money in the state to fix potholes, much less build a new Yadkin River Bridge”. 5,602 of North Carolina’s 18,042 bridges are listed as substandard yet NC DOT wants to build the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway with 188 crossings of streams and wetlands requiring 18 new bridges and 37 major culverts.

Warnings to protect and conserve water due to the exceptional drought and state funding of $100 million for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund are futile if DOT is allowed to proceed with the beltway plans that impact 41,854 linear feet of streams, 32 acres of wetlands and 25 acres of ponds. Over 6,000 linear feet of streams will be drained and relocated.

NC farmland and open spaces are destroyed at a rate of over 100,000 acres per year. The beltway will destroy another 1,380 acres of prime statewide and locally important farmland.

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, “One NC Naturally” implemented a state-wide effort to conserve forests and cropland having the capacity of absorbing and sequestering carbon dioxide to help offset emissions, yet the beltway will decimate 2,233 acres of forestland. Warnings of poor air quality days are frequent in the Triad. Twenty-four NC counties (including the Triad) do not meet air quality standards for either ozone or particulate matter (non-attainment). Burning one gallon of gasoline creates nineteen pounds of carbon dioxide. The greatest sources of ground level ozone are cars and trucks.

It is clear that those who stand to profit financially are the same people who most influence decisions made by NC DOT. Why else would busy land developers constitute such a large percentage of appointed “advisory” panels?

The American Planning Association’s Policy on Climate Change prescribes re-use and upgrades to existing infrastructure. The NC Climate Action Plan Advisory Group and the NC Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change have a series of strategies in place, including provisions for increased public transport to reduce the number of miles driven in personal vehicles across the state. PART, the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation just announced plans to spend $787,000 for property to house a permanent bus and rail mass transit terminal expected to cost more than $17 million. Rail would be the efficient and safe way to promote regional connectivity.

North Carolina Department of Transportation’s daunting financial challenges, rising fuel costs and the devastating environmental consequences of building new roads are all compelling reasons to oppose the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.

NC DOT leadership and planners must no longer ignore the “No-Build Alternative” in Environmental Impact Statements and should immediately adopt a “Fix-It-First Policy” for North Carolina Department of Transportation.

We must demand that our public employees start making more enlightened decisions in the public’s interest, with environmental sensitivity and accountability to the public.

Cathy M. Poole

Member of: NC Alliance for Transportation Reform

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

Greensboro's Urban Loop Could We Get A 3-d Visual Like The 485 in Charlotte Video Embedded

HAT TIP : Charlotte Blog CLICKHERE

There has been a lot of talk about the urban loop coming through Greensboro . It would be great to get a rendering like the one embedded above on the Greensboro Urban Loop coming through the Northern parts of Greensboro and Guilford County.

Here is a few links to the Greensboro Urban Loop coming through Greensboro

Greensboro City's Official web site CLICKHERE
Ex Mayor Johnson on Urban Loop CLICKHERE
Battle Forest post on Vie De Malchance blog CLICKHERE

This issue of the urban loop coming through Northern Greensboro and Guilford County should be on everyone's radar screen. This is a major transportation project that will change the whole landscape of all who live around this area especially near lawndale and battleground avenue.

Transparency Meeting Closed To Public , I Kid You Not Thanks To V.P. Biden

The Los Angeles Times has a headline on 1-14-2010 titled Joe Biden Update: He meets on transparency today but the meetings are closed CLICKHERE . Now that is funny and the article is amazing to read as well. Take a look at the Vice Presidents itinerary in the article.

Hat Tip: Right Angles CLICKHERE

Has the Piedmont Triad Become an “Ethics Free Zone”?

Has the Piedmont Triad become an “Ethics Free Zone”?


Corporations and developers who purchase “Stakeholder” seats on land-use/transportation planning committees, allowing no collaboration with anyone outside their inner circles until their “preferred concepts” are in place, have usurped planning in North Carolina to promote financial self-interests. These highly concentrated “Authority and Agency” Boards receive federal, state, and local taxpayer funds and proceed with shameless impunity.

Does the “Global Transpark Authority” membership have financial responsibility to the taxpayers? They don’t have the cash to pay off the $32.1 million they own to NC (Escheats fund) or the $18.1 million they owe to the Federal Aviation Administration according to a 2008 audit.

Last week, Piedmont Triad Partnership President, Don Kirkman who makes $225,102 a year told landowners that the Aerotropolis Leadership Board meetings aren’t open to the public, even though they receive government funding and they are controlling land-use and transportation planning for thousands of acres in the Triad. Aerotropolis is simply the shark who ate Heart of the Triad.

Well, residents are on to a much larger issue. Representatives Pricey Harrison and Larry Brown, agree that PTP is shading transparency and believe that the board is subject to “Open Meetings Law” because it is tied to a group that receives state and local funding. Mike Tadych, Attorney for the NC Press Association agrees. “We believe it is both a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law and a public agency subject to Open Records Law. The fact that it was formed as a not-for-profit corporation is not really relevant to the analysis of whether it is required to comply with these open government statutes.”

It is also my belief that since the Piedmont Triad Partnership is a non-profit 501(c)3 meaning that they are being given tax breaks by the American public, may not be a valid argument for them to attempt to use to justify closed meetings. On the contrary, it may be a further argument that it is improper for them to hold closed meetings.

Shouldn’t all Authorities, chartered by the NC General Assembly and Agencies receiving public funding be subject to NC ethics policies and laws? It’s past time for these public/private partnerships to be held accountable to the taxpayers.

Cathy M. Poole

Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad