September, 21 2011, 10:49am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Stacie B. Royster / (202) 662-8317 / (202) 445-6101 sroyster@lawyerscommittee.org
Angelo Kakolyris / (212) 259-8187 / (646) 361-5287 akakolyris@dl.com
Lawyers' Committee Applauds Court Decision Upholding Section 5, a Vital Provision of the Voting Rights Act
Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act against a challenge by Shelby County, Alabama, a largely-white suburb of Birmingham. The court ruled that Congress acted appropriately when it reauthorized the preclearance requirement of Section 5 in 2006. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law intervened in the case to defend Section 5, representing Bobby Lee Harris, a Shelby County resident and a former member of the Alabaster, Alabama city council.
WASHINGTON
Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act against a challenge by Shelby County, Alabama, a largely-white suburb of Birmingham. The court ruled that Congress acted appropriately when it reauthorized the preclearance requirement of Section 5 in 2006. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law intervened in the case to defend Section 5, representing Bobby Lee Harris, a Shelby County resident and a former member of the Alabaster, Alabama city council.
"Today's decision properly recognizes the important role that Section 5 plays in combating voting discrimination," said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers' Committee, who argued the case on behalf of Mr. Harris before the court.
The district court's decision confirms the overwhelming congressional consensus, in 2006, that this vital provision of the Voting Rights Act still is needed to ensure voting equality for minority citizens. Section 5 requires that states and localities with a history of voting discrimination submit any changes in their voting practices and procedures for federal review before putting them into effect.
Section 5 has been responsible for blocking over one thousand discriminatory voting changes since its enactment in 1965, changes that would have undermined the right to vote of countless citizens. In the next few years, Section 5 will remain invaluable as states, counties, cities, and school districts redraw their voting districts based on the 2010 Census. Simply put, Section 5 has played and will continue to play a critical role in what is still an ongoing struggle to eliminate racial discrimination in voting in this country.
"I know from first-hand experience how important Section 5 is for minority voters," said Mr. Harris. "In 2000, Section 5 prevented Alabaster from redrawing the boundaries of the ward I represented so as to dilute minority voting strength."
"Judge Bates' ruling preserves the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, which has been and will continue to be our country's most important means for preserving the right to vote and preventing discrimination in the electoral process," said John Nonna, a Lawyers' Committee board member, partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, and co-counsel along with the Lawyers' Committee for Bobby Lee Harris.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., is the named defendant in this lawsuit. Other Shelby County residents who intervened to defend Section 5 are represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The District Court's opinion may be found here. We will issue an analysis of the Court's opinion shortly. A Fact Sheet providing further information about this lawsuit and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is available here.
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of 'Indiscriminate' Israeli Attacks on Lebanon
"The latest evidence of unlawful airstrikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers," said one campaigner.
Dec 12, 2024
Amnesty International on Thursday called for a war crimes investigation into recent Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians, as well as a suspension of arms transfers to Israel as it attacks Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria.
In a briefing paper titled The Sky Rained Missiles, Amnesty "documented four illustrative cases in which unlawful Israeli strikes killed at least 49 civilians" in Lebanon in September and October amid an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign of invasion and bombardment that Lebanese officials say has killed or wounded more than 20,000 people.
"Amnesty International found that Israeli forces unlawfully struck residential buildings in the village of al-Ain in northern Bekaa on September 29, the village of Aitou in northern Lebanon on October 14, and in Baalbeck city on October 21," the rights group said. "Israeli forces also unlawfully attacked the municipal headquarters in Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on October 16."
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said in a statement that "these four attacks are emblematic of Israel's shocking disregard for civilian lives in Lebanon and their willingness to flout international law."
The September 29 attack "destroyed the house of the Syrian al-Shaar family, killing all nine members of the family who were sleeping inside," the report states.
"This is a civilian house, there is no military target in it whatsoever," village mukhtar, or leader, Youssef Jaafar told Amnesty. "It is full of kids. This family is well-known in town."
On October 16, Israel bombed the Nabatieh municipal complex, killing Mayor Ahmad Khalil and 10 other people.
"The airstrike took place without warning, just as the municipality's crisis unit was meeting to coordinate deliveries of aid, including food, water, and medicine, to residents and internally displaced people who had fled bombardment in other parts of southern Lebanon," Amnesty said, adding that there was no apparent military target in the immediate area.
In the deadliest single strike detailed in the Amnesty report, IDF bombardment believed to be targeting a suspected Hezbollah member killed 23 civilians forcibly displaced from southern Lebanon in Aitou on October 14.
"The youngest casualty was Aline, a 5-month-old baby who was flung from the house into a pickup truck nearby and was found by rescue workers the day after the strike," Amnesty said.
Survivor Jinane Hijazi told Amnesty: "I've lost everything; my entire family, my parents, my siblings, my daughter. I wish I had died that day too."
As the report notes:
A fragment of the munition found at the site of the attack was analyzed by an Amnesty International weapons expert and based upon its size, shape, and the scalloped edges of the heavy metal casing, identified as most likely a MK-80 series aerial bomb, which would mean it was at least a 500-pound bomb. The United States is the primary supplier of these types of munitions to Israel.
"The means and method of this attack on a house full of civilians likely would make this an indiscriminate attack and it also may have been disproportionate given the presence of a large number of civilians at the time of the strike," Amnesty stressed. "It should be investigated as a war crime."
The October 21 strike destroyed a building housing 13 members of the Othman family, killing two women and four children and wounding seven others.
"My son woke me up; he was thirsty and wanted to drink. I gave him water and he went back to sleep, hugging his brother," survivor Fatima Drai—who lost her two sons Hassan, 5, and Hussein, 3, in the attack—told Amnesty.
"When he hugged his brother, I smiled and thought, I'll tell his father how our son is when he comes back," she added. "I went to pray, and then everything around me exploded. A gas canister exploded, burning my feet, and within seconds, it consumed my kids' room."
Guevara Rosas said: "These attacks must be investigated as war crimes. The Lebanese government must urgently call for a special session at the U.N. Human Rights Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism into the alleged violations and crimes committed by all parties in this conflict. It must also grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed on Lebanese territory."
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians."
Last month, the court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel's 433-day Gaza onslaught, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the embattled enclave.
The tribunal also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged crimes committed during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and over 240 others were kidnapped.
Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Last week, Amnesty published a report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
The United States—which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover—has also been accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon.
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians," Guevara Rosas said. "The latest evidence of unlawful air strikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers to Israel due to the risk they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressional Report Calls Trump Deportation Plan 'Catastrophic' for Economy
"All it will do is raise grocery prices, destroy jobs, and shrink the economy," JEC Chair Martin Heinrich said of the president-elect's plan to deport millions of immigrants.
Dec 12, 2024
Echoing recent warnings from economists, business leaders, news reporting, and immigrant rights groups, Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee detailed Thursday how President-elect Donald Trump's planned mass deportations "would deliver a catastrophic blow to the U.S. economy."
"Though the U.S. immigration system remains broken, immigrants are crucial to growing the labor force and supporting economic output," states the new report from JEC Democrats. "Immigrants have helped expand the labor supply, pay nearly $580 billion a year in taxes, possess a spending power of $1.6 trillion a year, and just last year contributed close to $50 billion each in personal income and consumer spending."
There are an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, and Trump—who is set to be sworn in next month—has even suggested he would deport children who are American citizens with their parents who are not and attempt to end birthright citizenship.
Citing recent research by the American Immigration Council and the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the JEC report warns that depending on how many immigrants are forced out of the country, Trump's deportations could:
- Reduce real gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 7.4% by 2028;
- Reduce the supply of workers for key industries, including by up to 225,000 workers in agriculture and 1.5 million workers in construction;
- Push prices up to 9.1% higher by 2028; and
- Cost 44,000 U.S.-born workers their jobs for every half a million immigrants who are removed from the labor force.
Highlighting how mass deportations would harm not only undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens, the report explains that construction worker losses would "make housing even harder to build, raising its cost," and "reduce the supply of farmworkers who keep Americans fed as well as the supply of home health aides at a time when more Americans are aging and requiring assistance."
In addition to reducing home care labor, Trump's deportation plan would specifically harm seniors by reducing money for key government benefits that only serve U.S. citizens. The report references estimates that it "would cut $23 billion in funds for Social Security and $6 billion from Medicare each year because these workers would no longer pay into these programs."
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who chairs the JEC, said Thursday that "as a son of an immigrant, I know how hard immigrants work, how much they believe in this country, and how much they're willing to give back. They are the backbone of our economy and the driving force behind our nation's growth and prosperity."
"Trump's plan to deport millions of immigrants does absolutely nothing to address the core problems driving our broken immigration system," Heinrich stressed. "Instead, all it will do is raise grocery prices, destroy jobs, and shrink the economy. His immigration policy is reckless and would cause irreparable harm to our economy."
Along with laying out the economic toll of Trump's promised deportations, the JEC report makes the case that "providing a pathway to citizenship is good economics. Immigrants are helping meet labor demand while also demonstrating that more legal pathways to working in the United States are needed to meet this demand."
"Additionally, research shows that expanding legal immigration pathways can reduce irregular border crossings, leading to more secure and regulated borders," the publication says. "This approach is vital for managing increased migration to the United States, especially as more people flee their home countries due to the continued risk of violence, persecution, economic conditions, natural disasters, and climate change."
The JEC report followed a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday that explored how mass deportations would not only devastate the U.S. economy but also harm the armed forces and tear apart American families.
In a statement, Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the advocacy group America's Voice, thanked Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) "for calling this important discussion together and shining a spotlight on the potential damage."
Cárdenas pointed out that her group has spent months warning about how Trump's plan would "cripple communities and spike inflation," plus cause "tremendous human suffering as American citizens are ripped from their families, as parents are separated from their children, or as American citizens are deported by their own government."
"Trump and his allies have said it will be 'bloody,' that 'nobody is off the table,' and that 'you have to send them all back,'" she noted, arguing that the Republican plan will "set us back on both border control and public safety."
Cárdenas concluded that "America needs a serious immigration reform proposal—with pathways to legal status and controlled and orderly legal immigration—which recognize[s] immigrants are essential for America's future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Rule From Agency Trump Wants Destroyed Would Save Consumers $5 Billion Per Year in Overdraft Fees
One advocate called the CFPB's new rule "a major milestone in its effort to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
Dec 12, 2024
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of President-elect Donald Trump's top expected targets as he plans to dismantle parts of the federal government after taking office in January, announced on Thursday its latest action aimed at saving households across the U.S. hundreds of dollars in fees each year.
The agency issued a final rule to close a 55-year-old loophole that has allowed big banks to collect billions of dollars in overdraft fees from consumers each year,
The rule makes significant updates to federal regulations for financial institutions' overdraft fees, ordering banks with more than $10 billion in assets to choose between several options:
- Capping their overdraft fees at $5;
- Capping fees at an amount that covers costs and losses; or
- Disclosing the terms of overdraft loans as they do with other loans, giving consumers a choice regarding whether they open a line of overdraft credit and allowing them to comparison-shop.
The final rule is expected to save Americans $5 billion annually in overdraft fees, or about $225 per household that pays overdraft fees.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, called the rule "a major milestone" in the CFPB's efforts "to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
"No one should have to pick between paying a junk overdraft fee or buying groceries," said Rust. "This rule gives banks a choice: they can charge a reasonable fee that does not exploit their customers, or they can treat these loan products as an extension of credit and comply with existing lending laws."
The rule is set to go into effect next October, but the incoming Trump administration could put its implementation in jeopardy. Trump has named billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body he hopes to create. Musk has signaled that he wants to "delete" the CFPB, echoing a proposal within the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025, which was co-authored by many officials from the first Trump term.
"The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
"It is critical that incoming and returning members of Congress and President-elect Trump side with voters struggling in this economy and support the CFPB's overdraft rule," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). "This rule is an example of the CFPB's hard work for everyday Americans."
In recent decades, banks have used overdraft fees as profit drivers which increase consumer costs by billions of dollars every year while causing tens of millions to lose access to banking services and face negative credit reports that can harm their financial futures.
The Federal Reserve Board exempted banks from Truth in Lending Act protections in 1969, allowing them to charge overdraft fees without disclosing their terms to consumers.
"For far too long, the largest banks have exploited a legal loophole that has drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
Government watchdog Accountable.US credited the CFPB with cracking down on overdraft fees despite aggressive campaigning against the action by Wall Street, which has claimed the fees have benefits for American families.
Accountable.US noted that Republican Reps. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky have appeared to lift their criticisms of the rule straight from industry talking points, claiming that reforming overdraft fee rules would "limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and ultimately raise the cost of banking for all consumers."
Similarly, in April Barr claimed at a hearing that "the vast majority of Americans" believe credit card late fees are legitimate after the Biden administration unveiled a rule capping the fees at $8.
"Americans pay billions in overdraft fees every year, but the CFPB's final rule is putting an end to the $35 surprise fee," said Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US. "Despite efforts to block the rule and protect petty profits by big bank CEOs and lobbyists, the Biden administration's initiative will protect our wallets from an exploitative profit-maximizing tactic."
The new overdraft fee rule follows a $95 million enforcement action against Navy Federal Credit Union for illegal surprise overdraft fees and similar actions against Wells Fargo, Regions Bank, and Atlantic Union.
Consumers have saved $6 billion annually through the CFPB's initiative to curb junk fees, which has led multiple banks to reduce or eliminate their fees.
"Big banks that charge high fees for overdrafts are not providing a courtesy to consumers—it's a form of predatory lending that exacerbates wealth disparities and racial inequalities," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at NCLC. "The CFPB's overdraft rule ensures that the most vulnerable consumers are protected from big banks trying to pad their profits with junk fees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular