October, 29 2010, 11:41am EDT
Civil Rights, Privacy And Consumer Organizations Call On The FCC To Adopt Key Goals Of National Broadband Plan
WASHINGTON
A
coalition of national civil rights, privacy and consumer organizations
is calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to move
expeditiously to achieve several key goals of the National Broadband
Plan.
In a letter to FCC Commissioners delivered today, the coalition urged the FCC to focus on the importance of achieving four key objectives:
* Expansion of the Universal Service Fund to broadband;
* Assurance of transparency and truth in billing;
* Protection of consumers' privacy online; and
* Internet accessibility for those with disabilities.
In
light of questions raised in the context of net neutrality and the FCC's
authority over broadband, the coalition said the FCC should "adopt a
legally justifiable regulatory framework to enact the broadband plan."
light of questions raised in the context of net neutrality and the FCC's
authority over broadband, the coalition said the FCC should "adopt a
legally justifiable regulatory framework to enact the broadband plan."
"Regardless
of how organizations view net neutrality, the Commission's authority to
achieve many objectives critical to the civil rights community must be
affirmed," the coalition said.
of how organizations view net neutrality, the Commission's authority to
achieve many objectives critical to the civil rights community must be
affirmed," the coalition said.
The
letter was sent by the American Association of People with Disabilities,
the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian American Justice Center,
the Benton Foundation, Communications Workers of America, Consumer
Action, Consumer Watchdog, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, the NAACP, the National Consumers League, the National
Organization for Women, the National Urban League, Privacy
International, Privacy Lives, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy
Times and the United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc.
letter was sent by the American Association of People with Disabilities,
the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian American Justice Center,
the Benton Foundation, Communications Workers of America, Consumer
Action, Consumer Watchdog, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, the NAACP, the National Consumers League, the National
Organization for Women, the National Urban League, Privacy
International, Privacy Lives, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy
Times and the United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc.
The full text of the letter is below:
October 29, 2010
Julius Genachowski, Chairman
Federal Communication Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re:
National Broadband Plan, GN Docket No. 09-51, Framework for Broadband
Internet Service, GN Docket No. 10-127, Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Lifeline and Link-Up, WC Docket
No. 03-109
National Broadband Plan, GN Docket No. 09-51, Framework for Broadband
Internet Service, GN Docket No. 10-127, Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Lifeline and Link-Up, WC Docket
No. 03-109
Dear Chairman Genachowski and Members of the Commission:
We the
undersigned write today to support several key goals that the Federal
Communications Commission has laid out as part of its National Broadband
Plan and urge the Commission to take the regulatory actions necessary
to achieve those goals. Specifically, because of the DC Circuit decision
in Comcast vs. FCC, there are now questions regarding Commission's authority to implement these goals.[1]
While legislation might be one route to achieving this objective, we
urge the Commission to move forward expeditiously to adopt a legally
justifiable regulatory framework to enact the broadband plan.
undersigned write today to support several key goals that the Federal
Communications Commission has laid out as part of its National Broadband
Plan and urge the Commission to take the regulatory actions necessary
to achieve those goals. Specifically, because of the DC Circuit decision
in Comcast vs. FCC, there are now questions regarding Commission's authority to implement these goals.[1]
While legislation might be one route to achieving this objective, we
urge the Commission to move forward expeditiously to adopt a legally
justifiable regulatory framework to enact the broadband plan.
We are
writing this letter now because the importance of moving forward on key
civil rights objectives of the national broadband plan has been lost in
the context of the debate on net neutrality. Regardless of how
organizations view net neutrality, the Commission's authority to achieve
many objectives critical to the civil rights community must be
affirmed. These objectives include expansion of the Universal Service
Fund to broadband, assurance of transparency and truth in billing,
protection of consumers' privacy online, and internet accessibility for
those with disabilities. Because the Comcast decision makes the
Commission's authority to undertake these critical elements of the Plan
subject to clarification, it is incumbent on the Commission to have a
comprehensive framework on which to move forward to implement its stated
goals.
writing this letter now because the importance of moving forward on key
civil rights objectives of the national broadband plan has been lost in
the context of the debate on net neutrality. Regardless of how
organizations view net neutrality, the Commission's authority to achieve
many objectives critical to the civil rights community must be
affirmed. These objectives include expansion of the Universal Service
Fund to broadband, assurance of transparency and truth in billing,
protection of consumers' privacy online, and internet accessibility for
those with disabilities. Because the Comcast decision makes the
Commission's authority to undertake these critical elements of the Plan
subject to clarification, it is incumbent on the Commission to have a
comprehensive framework on which to move forward to implement its stated
goals.
Expanding Universal Service
According to the National Broadband Plan it is critical to:
Expand the Lifeline and Link-Up programs by allowing subsidies provided to low-income Americans to be used for broadband.[2]
In 2010
66% of Americans nationwide have broadband access. Yet a study by the
Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that only 50% of rural
residents, 56% of African Americans and 45% of households earning less
than $30,000 have broadband in the home.[3] The FCC's Broadband study found that 39% of all Americans without broadband have some type of disability.[4] This clearly shows that urgent action is needed to ensure that underserved communities have equal access to broadband.
66% of Americans nationwide have broadband access. Yet a study by the
Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that only 50% of rural
residents, 56% of African Americans and 45% of households earning less
than $30,000 have broadband in the home.[3] The FCC's Broadband study found that 39% of all Americans without broadband have some type of disability.[4] This clearly shows that urgent action is needed to ensure that underserved communities have equal access to broadband.
Expanding the Universal Service Fund (USF) to broadband and in particular, expanding Lifeline and Linkup
programs to broadband is the way to ensure that this is achieved. This
is especially relevant to underserved urban communities who only have
access to Lifeline and Linkup services while others such as rural
communities have access to the more expansive High Cost Program.
The USF was created at a time when communication was largely limited to
voice telephony services. Since then, broadband has become vital for
tasks including applying for a job, applying for small business
contracts and claiming government benefits such as food stamps - in
fact, broadband is the enabler of progress across a range of fields. All
of this helps to level the playing field for minority owned businesses
and assure a diverse and prepared workforce.
programs to broadband is the way to ensure that this is achieved. This
is especially relevant to underserved urban communities who only have
access to Lifeline and Linkup services while others such as rural
communities have access to the more expansive High Cost Program.
The USF was created at a time when communication was largely limited to
voice telephony services. Since then, broadband has become vital for
tasks including applying for a job, applying for small business
contracts and claiming government benefits such as food stamps - in
fact, broadband is the enabler of progress across a range of fields. All
of this helps to level the playing field for minority owned businesses
and assure a diverse and prepared workforce.
The USF
has produced significant results in voice telephony - since 1985, when
the Commission first established Lifeline to help low-income households
afford the monthly cost of telephone service, penetration rates among
low-income households have grown from 80.0% to 90.4%[5].
We strongly urge the Commission to continue this success of the USF by
expanding it to broadband so that underserved communities have the tools
to empower themselves.
has produced significant results in voice telephony - since 1985, when
the Commission first established Lifeline to help low-income households
afford the monthly cost of telephone service, penetration rates among
low-income households have grown from 80.0% to 90.4%[5].
We strongly urge the Commission to continue this success of the USF by
expanding it to broadband so that underserved communities have the tools
to empower themselves.
Transparency and Truth in Billing
Additionally the Plan seeks to:
Develop disclosure requirements for broadband service providers to
ensure consumers have the pricing and performance information they need
to choose the best broadband offers in the market. Increased
transparency will incent service providers to compete for customers on
the basis ofactual performance.[6]
ensure consumers have the pricing and performance information they need
to choose the best broadband offers in the market. Increased
transparency will incent service providers to compete for customers on
the basis ofactual performance.[6]
Consumers
have a right to a clear and accurate account of the broadband services
they purchase. Currently it is extremely difficult for individuals to
compare the connection speed and price of competing plans because
advertisers bill speed as "up to" instead of disclosing an accurate
average connection speed. As the Commission has recognized, advertised
broadband speeds are dramatically different than those the consumer
actually receives and, in fact, "actual download speeds experienced by
U.S. consumers lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%".[7] This
is a fundamental protection - consumers are quite literally not getting
what they are paying for. The Commission must be able to set standards
for disclosing actual speeds as well as include "simple
clear data that a 'reasonable consumer' can understand" and more
detailed information for "tech-savvy customers, software developers and
entrepreneurs" as called for in the plan.[8] Similarly,
the Commission must be able to move ahead on its "bill shock"
proceeding, which aims to protect consumers from unexpected and
unaffordable charges on their telecommunications bills.
have a right to a clear and accurate account of the broadband services
they purchase. Currently it is extremely difficult for individuals to
compare the connection speed and price of competing plans because
advertisers bill speed as "up to" instead of disclosing an accurate
average connection speed. As the Commission has recognized, advertised
broadband speeds are dramatically different than those the consumer
actually receives and, in fact, "actual download speeds experienced by
U.S. consumers lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%".[7] This
is a fundamental protection - consumers are quite literally not getting
what they are paying for. The Commission must be able to set standards
for disclosing actual speeds as well as include "simple
clear data that a 'reasonable consumer' can understand" and more
detailed information for "tech-savvy customers, software developers and
entrepreneurs" as called for in the plan.[8] Similarly,
the Commission must be able to move ahead on its "bill shock"
proceeding, which aims to protect consumers from unexpected and
unaffordable charges on their telecommunications bills.
Privacy Protections
Another goal of the broadband plan is to:
"Clarify
the relationship between users and their online profiles to enable
continued innovation and competition in applications and ensure consumer
privacy, including the
obligations of firms collecting personal information to allow consumers
to know what information is being collected, consent to such collection,
correct it if necessary, and control disclosure of such personal
information to third parties."[9]
the relationship between users and their online profiles to enable
continued innovation and competition in applications and ensure consumer
privacy, including the
obligations of firms collecting personal information to allow consumers
to know what information is being collected, consent to such collection,
correct it if necessary, and control disclosure of such personal
information to third parties."[9]
Increased
internet use and broadband capacity has allowed private companies to
collect vast amounts of data on users - information that is being used
to create detailed profiles of their movements, interests and activities
online.[10] This
harms consumers by invading their privacy and curbs innovation and
adoption of new technologies by making consumers hesitant to use them.
In order to address consumer fears, the Plan calls on Congress, the
Federal Trade Commission, and the FCC to improve the relationship
between users and the entities that create these online profiles. In
order for the FCC to meet its obligations, it requires the legal
authority to enact privacy protections for broadband service under
Section 222. Without that authority the Commission will be unable to
quell invasive practices like deep packet inspection. If such
routine privacy invasions are permitted to take place, the value of
Internet communications will decrease as a social good, contrary to the
mission of the FCC and our national interest.
internet use and broadband capacity has allowed private companies to
collect vast amounts of data on users - information that is being used
to create detailed profiles of their movements, interests and activities
online.[10] This
harms consumers by invading their privacy and curbs innovation and
adoption of new technologies by making consumers hesitant to use them.
In order to address consumer fears, the Plan calls on Congress, the
Federal Trade Commission, and the FCC to improve the relationship
between users and the entities that create these online profiles. In
order for the FCC to meet its obligations, it requires the legal
authority to enact privacy protections for broadband service under
Section 222. Without that authority the Commission will be unable to
quell invasive practices like deep packet inspection. If such
routine privacy invasions are permitted to take place, the value of
Internet communications will decrease as a social good, contrary to the
mission of the FCC and our national interest.
Increasing Adoption Rates for People with Disabilities
Finally the Plan recognizes that:
An
important and cross-cutting issue is accessibility for people with
disabilities. Some 39% of all non-adopters have a disability, much
higher than the 24% of overall survey respondents who have a disability.[11]
important and cross-cutting issue is accessibility for people with
disabilities. Some 39% of all non-adopters have a disability, much
higher than the 24% of overall survey respondents who have a disability.[11]
Broadband
access can be invaluable in helping individuals with disabilities live
independently while staying connected with people around them. It
enables telecommuting, distance learning, cutting edge access to medical
and health applications through telemedicine and telerehabilitation,
and the capacity to fully participate in American life. In fact, it is
quickly becoming as essential as assistive technology. The Plan
acknowledges the barriers faced by these individuals and has called upon
the FCC and the Department of Justice to modernize
accessibility laws, rules and related subsidy programs to ensure
broadband access. As we move into the digital age,
the Commission must ensure it uses all its legal authority - including
the provision in the recently enacted "21st Century
Communications & Video Accessibility Act of 2010" - to ensure that
people with disabilities are not left behind and will also share in the
benefits of broadband access.
access can be invaluable in helping individuals with disabilities live
independently while staying connected with people around them. It
enables telecommuting, distance learning, cutting edge access to medical
and health applications through telemedicine and telerehabilitation,
and the capacity to fully participate in American life. In fact, it is
quickly becoming as essential as assistive technology. The Plan
acknowledges the barriers faced by these individuals and has called upon
the FCC and the Department of Justice to modernize
accessibility laws, rules and related subsidy programs to ensure
broadband access. As we move into the digital age,
the Commission must ensure it uses all its legal authority - including
the provision in the recently enacted "21st Century
Communications & Video Accessibility Act of 2010" - to ensure that
people with disabilities are not left behind and will also share in the
benefits of broadband access.
As the
National Broadband Plan states, "like electricity a century ago,
broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global
competitiveness and a better way of life."[12]
It is impossible to meet any of the critical goals described above or
any of the Plan's broader goals without the re-establishment of clear
FCC authority to regulate in these critical areas.
National Broadband Plan states, "like electricity a century ago,
broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global
competitiveness and a better way of life."[12]
It is impossible to meet any of the critical goals described above or
any of the Plan's broader goals without the re-establishment of clear
FCC authority to regulate in these critical areas.
Sincerely,
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian American Justice Center
Benton Foundation
Communications Workers of America
Consumer Action
Consumer Watchdog
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
NAACP
National Consumers League
National Organization for Women
National Urban League
Privacy International
Privacy Lives
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Privacy Times
United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular