October, 12 2018, 12:00am EDT
Civil Rights Groups Sue Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp to Cease Discriminatory 'No Match, No Vote' Registration Protocol
Lawsuit filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and its partners on behalf of Georgia organizations
WASHINGTON
Today, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and its partners filed a major lawsuit against Secretary of State Brian Kemp over the state of Georgia's discriminatory and unlawful "exact match" voter suppression scheme. The suit alleges that Georgia's 'no match, no vote' voter registration scheme violates the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
"Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has been a driving force behind multiple voter suppression efforts throughout the years in Georgia," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "If there is one person in Georgia who knows that the 'Exact Match' scheme has a discriminatory impact on minority voters, it's Brian Kemp because we successfully sued him over a mirror policy in 2016. There exists a stark parallel between the voter suppression schemes levied by states around the country prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the insidious tactics used by Secretary Kemp to capitalize on the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County to gut the Act and its protections for African Americans and other people of color that came with it. No less than 70 percent of people impacted by 'Exact Match' are African-American. We will continue fighting voter suppression to ensure a level playing field for voters across Georgia this election cycle."
As a result of the "exact match" voter-registration protocol, which is being implemented by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, more than 53,000 voter registration applications have been placed in "pending" status one month before the midterm election. The vast majority of those pending applications are from minority voters. The federal lawsuit asks that a court prohibit the purging of any voters based on the 'exact match' protocol and ensure that all ballots cast by voters flagged as 'non-matches' are counted in future elections.
Secretary Kemp has long endorsed and repeatedly used the 'exact match' protocol, which has been previously shown to have a high error rate and a substantial, negative impact upon voting-eligible African American, Latino and Asian American Georgians. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and other civil rights organizations successfully challenged the use of 'no match, no vote' prior to the November 2016 election, resulting in the restoration of more than 40,000 voters to the rolls.
Under the Georgia law, applicants are removed from the registration rolls after 26 months if they do not cure the "no-match" result. The matching protocol delays the processing of complete and accurate voter registration applications and will cause many to be rejected after the 26-month window passes, resulting in the disenfranchisement of legitimate, voting-eligible Georgians. The notice provided by election officials is vague and often confused with junk mail, meaning that voters are frequently unaware that there is an issue with their registration status.
Voter registration application is flagged and placed in "pending" status if the information on their registration form does not exactly match information contained in the Department of Driver Services or Social Security Administration databases. A non-match can result from something as simple as an election officials switching two numbers in the applicant's driver's license number, adding or removing a hyphen from a name, or changing a voter's maiden name. The matching process also incorrectly flags U.S. citizens as non-citizens, even where the applicants submit a copy of their U.S. naturalization certificate or other evidence of their U.S. citizenship with their applications.
Nearly every other state treats failure to match a database differently than Georgia. In the case of a mismatch, the voter is still fully registered. First-time voters are required to show a form of identification at the polls when they vote for the first time. This process provides the same amount of election security and imposes less barriers to voters.
"Georgia's 'exact match' protocol has resulted in the cancellation or rejection of tens of thousands of voter registration applications in the past. The reintroduction of this practice, which is known to be discriminatory and error-ridden, is appalling," said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. "This policy adds nothing to the security of Georgia elections but causes unnecessary confusion and additional burdens for eligible citizens who wish to exercise their fundamental right to vote."
"In 2016, we helped stop Georgia's 'exact match' protocol that kicked thousands of voters off the voter rolls--some of them simply because they have uncommon Asian or Latino names that others commonly misspell," Phi Nguyen Litigation Director, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta. "It is unacceptable that only two years later, we are once again asking a court to step in to end an almost identical 'exact match' protocol that threatens to disenfranchise thousands more from our communities."
"I am appalled at the actions of the Secretary of State office; over 70% of the pending applicants are minorities," said Phyllis Blake, President of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP. "I hope that the Secretary of State's expeditiousness follow up to correct these pending applications, whether the problem exists within the database, SOS office, County Voter Registration office or applicant, find it and fix it to allow the voter to fulfill the precious right to vote. The NAACP, GSC will continue to monitor this situation and request full transparency in yet another GA Voter Suppression Tactic attempt."
"It's a stain on our system of democracy when less than a month before an election which could produce the first African-American female governor in our nation's history, we are seeing this type of voter suppression scheme attempted by a state official whose candidacy for the governorship produces an irremediable conflict of interest," said NAACP President and CEO, Derrick Johnson. "We are closely monitoring this situation with our Georgia State Conference President Phyllis Blake and demanding a complete investigation and full transparency prior to the election."
"The exact match process has a discriminatory impact on minority voters. It creates further barriers for U. S. citizens attempting to exercise their right to vote," said Jerry Gonzalez, Executive Director of Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO). "We do hope the court will step in and allow these voters the right to vote while striking down this discriminatory process.
"The right to vote is central to our democracy," said Villa Hayes, Senior Pro Bono Counsel at Hughes Hubbard & Reed. "Democracy works best when all citizens can vote and we are proud to be an active participant in voter protection."
"The Exact Match law continues to be a tool of voter suppression. Every year, thousands of Georgians are denied their right to vote due to clerical/administrative errors," said Tamieka Atkins, Executive Director for Pro Georgia. "This year, 53,000 people are being negatively affected. If you are on the pending list, you can still vote. You must show photo identification at the polls that closely resembles the name you used to register to vote. If you're not sure if you're on the pending list, visit mvp.sos.ga.gov to check your status or call ProGeorgia at 4045833871 and we can assist you."
On July 18, 2018, voting rights advocates sent a notice letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, advising him that the enactment and implementation of the voter registration provisions of Georgia Act 250 (O.C.G.A. SS 21-2-220.1), which codified a 'no match, no vote' voter registration protocol, violate Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, and requesting that Secretary Kemp immediately cease enforcement of the Georgia law or risk facing a new legal challenge to the law in federal court.
Given recent news reports, it is important to note that many voters on this "pending" list for "exact match" issues are entitled to vote a regular ballot in person at the polls if they show Georgia voter photo ID. It is possible, however, that some may have to present proof of citizenship to a deputy registrar and that others will not be able to vote by mail or may have their vote by mail ballots rejected because Georgia absentee ballots do not require photo ID. Voters with questions can call Election Protection at 866-OUR-VOTE.
The Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed its lawsuit today along with its partners including Campaign Legal Center, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta and the Law Office of Bryan Sells. The suit was filed on behalf of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta, ProGeorgia State Table, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the New Georgia Project.
To read the full complaint, click here
About the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. Now in its 55th year, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is continuing its quest "Move America Toward Justice." The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice for all, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, fair housing and community development, economic justice, educational opportunities, and voting rights. For more information, please visit https://lawyerscommittee.org
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
'People Power Works': Shell Backs Down in Anti-Protest Lawsuit Against Greenpeace
"Shell thought suing us for millions over a peaceful protest would intimidate us, but this case became a PR millstone tied around its neck," said the co-executive director of Greenpeace U.K.
Dec 10, 2024
The United Kingdom-based oil giant Shell agreed Tuesday to settle a major lawsuit the company brought against Greenpeace after activists from the group boarded and occupied a company oil platform last year to protest fossil fuel expansion.
Greenpeace said in a statement that as part of the settlement, it agreed to donate £300,000—roughly $382,000—to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, a charity that helps save lives at sea, but will pay nothing to Shell and accept no liability. The donation represents a fraction of the over $11 million in damages and legal costs defendants faced, the group said.
The Greenpeace defendants have also "agreed to avoid protesting for a period at four Shell sites in the northern North Sea."
"Shell thought suing us for millions over a peaceful protest would intimidate us, but this case became a PR millstone tied around its neck," said Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace U.K. "The public backlash against its bullying tactics made it back down and settle out of court."
"This settlement shows that people power works. Thousands of ordinary people across the country backed our fight against Shell and their support means we stay independent and can keep holding Big Oil to account," Hamid added. "This legal battle might be over, but Big Oil's dirty tricks aren't going away. With Greenpeace facing further legal battles around the world, we won't stop campaigning until the fossil fuel industry stops drilling and starts paying for the damage it is causing to people and planet."
"These aggressive legal tactics, the huge sums of money, and attempts to block the right to protest pose a massive threat."
Shell brought the case, which Greenpeace characterized as a "textbook" strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), in February 2023 and sought $1 million in damages from activists who boarded a Shell-contracted ship carrying equipment to drill for oil in the North Sea.
"When the protest ended, the only damage Shell could find was a padlock which, they alleged, our activists broke. That's it," Greenpeace U.K. said Tuesday. "Yet they came after us with a million-dollar lawsuit, which they justified for their spending on safety."
The group, which warned that the case had dire implications for the right to protest, credited a "sustained, year-long campaign against the suit" for forcing the oil behemoth to back down. The campaign, according to Greenpeace, "turned the legal move into a PR embarrassment for Shell."
"The case was dubbed the 'Cousin Greg' lawsuit by Forbes after a scene in the Emmy-awarded drama Succession, in which the hapless character threatens to sue Greenpeace to universal dismay," the environmental group noted Tuesday.
Greenpeace is currently facing several other SLAPP suits, including one brought by Energy Transfer, majority-owner of the Dakota Access pipeline. The group said Tuesday that the Energy Transfer suit "threatens the very existence of Greenpeace in the U.S."
"These aggressive legal tactics, the huge sums of money, and attempts to block the right to protest pose a massive threat. It could stop Greenpeace being able to make a real difference on the things that matter most," the organization said Tuesday. "It's part of a growing trend by powerful corporations and governments to crush peaceful protest—using draconian laws or intimidation lawsuits like this."
"It seeks to silence the people most impacted by the climate crisis. This threatens the global fight for climate justice," the group added. "We won't give up. This is Shell versus all of us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Needs to Stop': UN Envoy Condemns Israeli Military's Advance on Syria
"What we are seeing is a violation of the disengagement agreement from 1974," said Geir Pedersen, the United Nations' special envoy to Syria.
Dec 10, 2024
The United Nations' special envoy to Syria said Tuesday that the Israeli military's rapid move to seize Syrian territory following the Assad government's collapse is a grave violation of a decades-old agreement that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims is now dead.
"What we are seeing is a violation of the disengagement agreement from 1974, so we will obviously, with our colleagues in New York, follow this extremely closely in the hours and days ahead," Geir Pedersen said at a media briefing in Geneva.
Hours earlier, Pedersen told Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan that "this needs to stop," referring to Israel's further encroachment on the occupied and illegally annexed Golan Heights.
"This is a very serious issue," Pedersen said, rejecting Netanyahu's assertion that the 1974 agreement is null. "Let's not start playing with an extremely important part of the peace structure that has been in place."
"The message to Israel is that this needs to stop, What we are seeing in the Golan is a violation of the 1974 agreement. This is a very serious issue."
The UN's Syria Special Envoy tells me on 'Mehdi Unfiltered' that Israel's unlawful actions in Syria need to stop. pic.twitter.com/G7jSWJ8oP0
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 9, 2024
Netanyahu, who took the stand for the first time Tuesday in his long-running corruption trial, made clear in the wake of Assad's fall that he views developments in Syria as advantageous for Israel, writing on social media that "the collapse of the Syrian regime is a direct result of the severe blows with which we have struck Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran."
The prime minister also thanked U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for "acceding to my request to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, in 2019," adding that the occupied territory "will be an inseparable part of the state of Israel forever."
The Washington Postreported late Monday that "within hours of rebels taking control of Syria's capital, Israel moved to seize military posts in that country’s south, sending its troops across the border for the first time since the official end of the Yom Kippur War in 1974."
"Israeli officials defended the move as limited in scope, aimed at preventing rebels or other local militias from using abandoned Syrian military equipment to target Israel or the Golan Heights, an area occupied by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war," the Post added. "On Monday, more troops could be seen outside this Druze village adjacent to the border, preparing to cross."
The United States, Israel's main ally and arms supplier, also defended the Israeli military's actions, with a State Department spokesman telling reporters Monday that "every country, I think, would be worried about a possible vacuum that could be filled by terrorist organizations on its border, especially in volatile times, as we obviously are in right now in Syria."
Watch StateSpox justify Israel’s invasion of Syria based on hypotheticals.@shauntandon: Israel has gone across the Golan Heights, the UN said it’s a violation, does the US agree
Miller: Every country would be worried about a possible vacuum that could be filled by terrorist… pic.twitter.com/AA7lNhfSt1
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) December 9, 2024
On Tuesday, Israel denied reports that its tanks reached a point roughly 16 miles from the Syrian capital as it continued to bomb Syrian army bases.
"Regional security sources and officers within the now fallen Syrian army described Tuesday morning's airstrikes as the heaviest yet, hitting military installations and airbases across Syria, destroying dozens of helicopters and jets, as well as Republican Guard assets in and around Damascus," Reutersreported. The U.S. also bombed dozens of targets in Syria in the aftermath of Assad's fall.
The governments of Iraq, Qatar, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have each denounced the Israeli military's seizure of Syrian land, with Qatar's foreign ministry slamming the move as "a dangerous development and a blatant attack on Syria's sovereignty and unity as well as a flagrant violation of international law."
"The policy of imposing a fait accompli pursued by the Israeli occupation, including its attempts to occupy Syrian territories, will lead the region to further violence and tension," the foreign ministry warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Jersey Governor Signs Freedom to Read Act Barring Book Bans
The law, said the Democrat, "cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students."
Dec 09, 2024
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday signed legislation protecting librarians and prohibiting public schools and libraries from banning books—a move that came as Republican state lawmakers are proscribing a record number of titles, many of them works addressing sexual orientation, gender identity, and racial injustice.
Flanked by educators, librarians, and other advocates, Murphy signed
A.3446/S.2421—known as the Freedom to Read Act—in the Princeton Public Library.
"The Freedom to Read Act cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students," said Murphy. "Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others. I'm proud to amplify the voices of our past and present, as there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely."
According to a statement from Murphy's office:
Under the law, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are barred from excluding books because of the origin, background, or views of the material or of its authors. Further, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are prevented from censoring library material based on a disagreement with a viewpoint, idea, or concept, or solely because an individual finds certain content offensive, unless they are restricting access to developmentally inappropriate material for certain age groups.
The legislation "also provides protections for library staff members against civil and criminal lawsuits related to complying with this law."
New Jersey Association of School Librarians President Karen Grant said that "the Freedom to Read Act recognizes the professionalism, honor, work ethics, and performance of school and public library staff" and "promotes libraries as trusted sources of information and recognizes the many roles that libraries play in students' lives."
"The bill will protect the intellectual freedom of students as well as acknowledge that school libraries are centers for voluntary inquiry, fostering students' growth and development," Grant added. "Additionally, we are grateful for the broad coalition of support from so many organizations for this legislation."
The leader of one of those groups—Garden State Equality executive director Christian Fuscarino—said, "Gov. Murphy just made it clear: In New Jersey, censorship loses, and freedom wins."
"At a time when access to diverse and inclusive materials is under attack across the nation, this legislation sends a powerful message that New Jersey will stand firm in protecting intellectual freedom and fostering a culture of understanding and inclusion," Fuscarino added.
The New Jersey law comes amid a near-tripling in the number of books banned or challenged by Republican state lawmakers and right-wing organizations over the past year, with PEN America counting over 10,000 such titles during the 2023-24 academic year—up from 3,362 titles during the previous scholastic year.
With Murphy's signature, New Jersey joins Minnesota and Illinois in passing state legislation to counter GOP book-banning efforts.
As the Chicago Tribunereported Sunday, "a number of school districts, many of them in deeply conservative areas of south and central Illinois," are giving up state grants rather than adopting principles against book-banning."Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular