Uncategorized

Sanderson-CooperState Sen. Norm Sanderson (R-Pamlico) told those attending the inaugural meeting of the Morehead-Beaufort Tea Party yesterday that the top leadership in both GOP-controlled branches of the legislature are working to remove Attorney General Roy Cooper from office, according to this report in The Carteret County News-Times.

Citing Cooper’s announcement in late July that his office would no longer defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban after the Fourth Circuit found Virginia’s similar law unconstitutional, Sanderson said:

“If he’s not going to defend what we, the citizens of North Carolina, want him to defend, we need to probably impeach him because he’s been a vocal opponent of the marriage amendment ever since it was passed.”

He added that steps are in place once Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis give the green light.

“Our leadership hasn’t made the final decision but everything is on ready, set, go if that’s what we want to do.”

Of course, doing what some lawmakers and citizens of the state want him to do is not the job of the Attorney General.

Here’s Jim Tierney, former Maine Attorney General and now director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School:

The simple truth is that attorney general refusal to defend happens all the time.

Legislatures are comprised in most states by non-lawyers trying to do the right thing, but they do not understand the complexity of constitutional limits. They are advised, but often plunge ahead — both liberals and conservatives — and make constitutional mistakes. It then falls to the attorney general to clean this mess up.

The attorney general is supposed to uphold the constitution – that’s his job.

And you want your attorney general telling the truth. If the attorney general in his view says ‘you’ve got some real constitutional issues here,’ I would think any governor would want to know that before he signs a bill.

 

 

Uncategorized

According to a release today by the N.C. Department of Administration, as of July 31, 2014 the state Industrial Commission has denied more than 300 claims for compensation from the $10 million Eugenics Compensation Fund.

The Office for Justice of Sterilization Victims had received 780 claim forms from potential Eugenics Board sterilization victims by the June 30 deadline.  It  forwarded 565 claims to the Industrial Commission for initial determination and requested additional information from the remaining claimants.

Of the 565 sent to the Industrial Commission, 500 claims were reviewed and sent initial determination orders. Only 180 of those were deemed “qualified” for compensation.

Per payment provisions enacted with the new budget, those claimants will receive an initial payment in October.

Read more about the eugenics program here.

Uncategorized

Bonner-BridgeThe dispute over the Bonner Bridge project is heading back to the district court, after a unanimous panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held today that the lower court had failed to consider certain requirements relating to the protection of wildlife refuge land — here, the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge on Hatteras Island, through which the battered NC- 12 runs.

The state had agreed in 2003 to build the the Pamlico Sound Alternative – a 17-mile causeway bridge that would bypass NC-12 in the troubled areas, spanning instead from Bodie Island, out into the Pamlico Sound and connecting back at Rodanthe. Construction was set to begin in 2006, with the new bridge opening in 2010.

But the NCDOT shifted course in 2009 and agreed to build a parallel bridge instead, leaving improvements to NC-12 in the troubled areas to then undefined “later phases.”

The Department has since proposed the construction of two additional bridges in the shifting sands of the Refuge to overcome storm wash-out on NC-12.

In the ruling, written by U.S. Circuit Judge  James A. Wynn Jr., the judges did find though that the state had complied with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act when evaluating multiple proposals that included the building of the single replacement bridge and the planning of future bridges along NC -12.

A full analysis of the decision will follow.

Read more about the case here.

 

Uncategorized

vote2Election law expert Justin Levitt has this must-read post today in the Washington Post about the lack of credible voter fraud incidents that a photo ID could have prevented.

Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, has been tracking such incidents since 2008 and reports that out of billions of votes cast during that period, he’s found 31 credible incidents.

Referring to claims asserted in recent cases in Mississippi and Wisconsin that voter ID can stop voter fraud,  Levitt notes:

This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.

Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.

 

 

 

Uncategorized

womens-healthFor the second time in days, a federal judge has ruled as unconstitutional state provisions requiring doctors who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

The decision in Alabama by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson follows a 2-1 decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29, rejecting a similar provision in Mississippi.

Similar provisions have been adopted in at least 10 states, with court challenges following.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court  blocked efforts by Wisconsin’s Attorney General to reinstate a state law requiring that abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

That provision was one of several restrictive measures hastily passed by the Wisconsin legislature in 2013. In the lawsuit that followed in federal court there, U.S. District Judge William Conley enjoined enforcement of the provision and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 

As we’ve noted before, doctors have been among the most vocal critics of such provisions. As several contended in the Wisconsin case:

Doctors providing services submitted letters from hospitals rejecting their requests for admitting privileges mostly because they wouldn’t admit the number of patients required.  Hospitals normally require physicians with admitting privileges to admit a certain number of patients each year and with complications of abortions being rare, those minimum admission rates would never be met by doctors performing abortion.

The law requiring hospital admitting privileges only applies to abortion providers.  Those providing outpatient surgery, oral surgery, or other outpatient procedures are not required to have admitting privileges.

They’ve also argued that admitting privileges are not necessary, since patients in distress are sent to the emergency room, where they are treated by physicians there. 

In North Carolina, an admitting privileges requirement was one of several abortion restrictions proposed early in the 2013 long session but dropped from the bill ultimately signed into law, pending the adoption of regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services. That process has since been stalled.