Latest news with #BlackNorthCarolinians
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court panel grills attorneys for North Carolina over felon voting statute
The Lewis F. Powell Jr. federal courthouse in Richmond is home to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. (Photo: Ned Oliver/ Virginia Mercury) A trio of federal judges appeared skeptical on Friday of arguments advanced by attorneys for the state of North Carolina in a voting rights case involving the issue of voting by people with past felony convictions. The state is seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that struck down a statute criminalizing voting by disenfranchised felons as racially discriminatory. The case concerns a state law making it a felony for anyone who has lost their right to vote following a criminal conviction to cast a ballot unless they have had their right restored. The North Carolina A. Phillip Randolph Institute (APRI), a nonprofit affiliate of the AFL-CIO, filed suit in 2020 on the grounds that prosecuting individuals who unknowingly vote while ineligible is an unconstitutional violation of due process and equal protection rights. The nonprofit also contended that the law has a chilling effect on North Carolinians with criminal convictions who have since regained their eligibility. In 2023, the General Assembly passed an updated version of the law — explicitly excluding unintentional voting violations from prosecution — and set it to take effect for any offenses taking place on or after Dec. 1 of that year. Federal Judge Loretta Biggs ruled in April 2024 that the prior statute unconstitutionally discriminated against Black North Carolinians on both grounds, and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding that the legislature did not repeal the previous law when it rewrote it. The North Carolina State Board of Elections appealed the ruling, arguing that: a) the district court should not have granted relief in light of the new law, b) APRI no longer had a concrete interest in the case, and c) the matter should be declared moot. The board did not dispute the contention that because North Carolina has no statute of limitations for felonies, voters could still face prosecution for ballots cast in past elections. The panel on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — judges James Wynn Jr., Pamela Harris, and DeAndrea Benjamin — grilled lawyers for the board and the state Conference of District Attorneys Friday on why they would want the law to remain on the books when it was replaced by a new statute in 2023, unless they sought to prosecute under the old law. Terence Steed, an attorney with the North Carolina Department of Justice representing the board, noted that APRI was not challenging the new law and said 'there's no evidence in the record' that the previous law would be enforced, even if it legally could be. 'Can I ask why you're here, then?' Harris asked. 'If there will not be prosecutions under the old law, I truly don't understand why you're here.' 'There's important principles of mootness in this case,' Steed replied. 'When our office defends statutes, which it is frequently called upon to do, it is not uncommon — just as it is in Virginia and all the other states in the circuit and across the country — that the General Assembly, during the pendency of that litigation, might step in and amend the law to correct what the plaintiffs are concerned about.' Harris said while that may be true, she had 'never seen anything like this' in which a state nonetheless appeals an injunction against enforcing a law that has been made obsolete. She asked why the old law could still be enforced after the passage of its replacement, to which Steed replied that he was 'not sure how it would work under North Carolina law, and that's not an issue I was prepared for' — a statement that Wynn chided him for. 'I don't understand at all what you're arguing here when you say you don't understand how it operates under North Carolina law,' Wynn said. 'You're representing the state of North Carolina, we expect you to know that.' Judges also pressed Elizabeth O'Brien, an attorney with NCDOJ representing the Conference of District Attorneys, on whether she was arguing the state should be able to prosecute offenses prior to 2024 under the old law. 'I think that the way the statute was amended provides that those prosecutions could occur,' O'Brien said. 'That's the point we're making,' Wynn interjected. 'You've just admitted, you just presented why it's not moot. You say they could occur, and so if they can occur if we don't uphold the district court, then essentially, you're saying you should have two statutes you can prosecute under.' Jonathan Youngwood, the attorney representing APRI, said if anything, the new law creates more of an interest in relief to prevent voter misinformation about their voting rights. He cited the confusion in the courtroom as evidence that voters with criminal convictions whose rights had been restored could easily be misled into thinking it was still unlawful for them to vote. 'North Carolina has no statute of limitations on felony charges. That means any person who voted in a prior election and some DA, someday decides could be subject to this old discriminatory law, could be prosecuted,' Youngwood said. He said the General Assembly's amendment was insufficient to counter this issue, arguing that because it said it is 'effective to acts going forward,' it does not repeal the previous statute by implication. And he noted that at the time of discovery in 2022, there were 200 active cases related to the law. 'All those cases could be live,' Youngwood said. 'Your Honor, I wish we could make some deal that there wouldn't be future prosecutions. The only way we know it is the way we pursued it in the district court, which was to seek an order making it clear,' Youngwood said. 'We hoped the case wouldn't be appealed, it was appealed, and so we're taking up your time this morning.' Wynn asked whether it would be sufficient to uphold the district court order on only one of the grounds: either as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or a violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Youngwood replied that while he did not presume to tell them how to write their decision, either would be adequate relief so long as it would 'permanently wipe the statute from the books.'
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
How Trump's Rollbacks Keep Lead and PFAS in Water for Black Communities
Less than a year ago, the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency unveiled the first national plan to remove lead pipes and limit the levels of harmful chemicals in drinking water — and they chose to do so in front of Black North Carolinians. For decades, residents in the Tar Heel State have been concerned by the prevalence of lead water pipes and a drinking water supply that is contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or 'forever chemicals.' And researchers have shown that Black residents of the state who rely on well water are typically exposed to higher levels of chemicals and lower quality drinking water than communities connected to a municipal water supply. When the EPA's plan was announced last year, Belinda Joyner, a former schoolteacher in North Carolina, told Capital B she was ecstatic about cleaning up the state and nation's drinking water. 'It's finally here, and we love it,' she said, 'even if it is all overdue and something that should have happened years ago.' But now, that sense of progress is on the chopping block before it could even truly take hold. Within weeks of taking office, the Trump administration paused the plans to replace lead pipes and tighten rules on limiting toxic chemicals in drinking water. If the plans are completely abandoned, millions of people will remain at risk of exposure to contaminants that have long been linked to developmental delays in children and heightened risks of chronic diseases for adults. The reversals come as the Trump administration dismantles a range of governmental agencies that had been designed to regulate big business and protect Americans. The Biden administration's efforts were particularly relevant for Black Americans because studies have shown that they are typically exposed to higher levels of lead and other toxic chemicals in their water than other demographic groups. Read More: Trump's Fossil Fuel Agenda Puts Black Communities at Risk The changes that the new administration is implementing, coupled with its removal of other supports for economically disadvantaged communities, threaten to widen the gap in access to safe drinking water. The rapid elimination of these initiatives feels like 'if you put a gallon of milk in the fridge and it spoils overnight,' said Nayyirah Shariff, a community activist who has helped secure funding for the replacement of lead water pipes in Flint, Michigan, for a decade. Republican lawmakers in Congress have already introduced a new rule to permanently repeal the plan to replace the nation's lead pipes. There are still other avenues available to improve water plants and replace water lines, but advocates say that they are not optimistic that those efforts will lead to significant improvements for the Black communities that need them most. In the first month of the Trump administration, roughly 15% of EPA workers were warned they were at risk of immediate termination. In addition, EPA workers focused on reducing environmental harms to poor and minority communities were put on leave. 'With environmental justice effectively dead at the federal level and the attention to our community gone,' the struggle for clean drinking water in Black neighborhoods is a 'fight for our dignity and place in this country,' said Shariff. That fight is about more than just physical ailments. Research has shown that unsafe drinking water in communities correlates with higher rates of gun violence, lower property values, neighborhood disinvestment, joblessness, and under-funded schools. Officials at both the EPA and Department of Justice declined to comment on the rule pauses. Here are the answers to some commonly asked questions about public water systems and what the administration's changes might mean for you: Public Drinking Water Systems:Public drinking water systems in the U.S. start by drawing water from natural sources like rivers, lakes, or underground aquifers and then purify it at water treatment plants that are regulated by the EPA. The water then gets transferred through an extensive network of pipes. (About 10% of these pipes are made of lead.) These systems are typically managed by local or municipal governments and funded through taxes or fees. However, due to historical and systemic inequities, many Black American communities have experienced underinvestment in water infrastructure, leading to both economic and health disparities. Read More: Record Investment Merely Scratches the Surface of Fixing Black America's Water Crisis The Water Crisis Is Disrupting Black Americans' Lives Private (Rural) Drinking Water Systems:Private or rural drinking water systems are often individual wells or small community-managed systems, where homeowners or local groups take on the responsibility for maintaining water quality and infrastructure. Because these systems are not as tightly regulated or financially supported as those run by large public utilities, they face challenges with consistent water quality testing, upkeep, and access to modern treatment technologies. This situation is particularly acute in rural areas where Black Americans reside because of geographic isolation and economic policies that make it difficult for these homeowners to afford water wells and regular water quality testing. Read More: Alabama Discriminated Against Black Residents, Feds Confirm It is important for the federal government to collaborate with state and local governments because funding, infrastructure, and oversight responsibilities are often decentralized and siloed, said LaTricea Adams, a former member of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Without adequate funding, local and state governments could not manage distribution systems, oversee local infrastructure, or conduct water quality testing. Federal programs passed under Biden like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $50 billion investment in water systems provided investments for replacing lead pipes and upgrading water treatment facilities, while the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund helps states finance long-term improvements. However, states must properly allocate these funds and enforce regulations. Last year, an analysis by Capital B found that money allocated through the revolving fund was more likely to benefit non-Black communities. Essentially, to ensure Black neighborhoods have clean drinking water, there needs to be strong regulations that are backed by dedicated funding sources and strict oversight, Adams explained. Historically, this has not happened, as seen in Flint, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi. Read More: Jackson's Water Is Still Brown. The EPA Says That's Not Discrimination. Lead contamination in drinking water happens due to the nation's aging lead service lines that often corrode, allowing lead to seep into the water. Historical policies like redlining and discriminatory urban planning has left Black neighborhoods with outdated infrastructure and a higher risk of exposure to lead. Furthermore, while the Safe Drinking Water Act set standards for lead levels, its uneven enforcement and lack of targeted remediation in marginalized communities have perpetuated these inequities. (In 2020, the first Trump administration attempted to limit elements of the Clean Water Act and this year, the administration has signaled an attempt to weaken current lead restrictions.) There are roughly 9 million lead water service lines in operation across the nation, and they're virtually everywhere, making it difficult for cities to locate and replace these pipes without federal funding. Read More: Flint's Water Crisis, 10 Years Later PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of manmade chemicals used in everyday products like nonstick cookware, waterproof fabrics, and firefighting foams for their durability and water-resistant properties. They're often called 'forever chemicals' because they do not break down or disappear, remaining in our environment forever. They've found their way into our drinking water through industrial discharges, runoff from military bases where firefighting foams were used, and leaching from landfills and wastewater. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to a range of serious health issues — including immune system disruptions, thyroid problems, certain cancers, and reproductive and developmental effects—and Black American communities often face higher exposure due to long-standing environmental injustices that place them near contaminated sites and industrial operations. Since PFAS does not break down easily, it requires more advanced — and often pricey — technologies to effectively get them out, something that is difficult to do without federal support. Read More: Black and Hispanic Communities More Likely to Have Drinking Water with PFAS You can check if your community has elevated levels of PFAS in drinking water using this map. Here, you can check if your city is a hotspot for lead contamination and service lines. (Neither of these databases are exhaustive, so it is recommended that you reach out to your local city council member or city public works department for more information.) Below you'll find a collection of steps recommended by advocates and former government officials that you can take to ensure your water is meeting the standards it should. The activists and officials emphasized the need for a multipronged approach that combines learning from history, adapting leadership to the current challenges, and maintaining the push for strong regulations and oversight alongside infrastructure improvements. Reach out to your local city council members with a set of questions: Has your area conducted extensive mapping of where lead service lines are located? Is there funding for lead testing at individual properties? How old is our water treatment facility? (More than half of the country has outdated facilities.) Ask for access to water quality reports Advocate for continued investment in water infrastructure, especially in your area's rural communities. Collaborate with local groups to discuss water quality concerns, share information, and develop collective strategies for improvement. Participate in public comment periods and attend hearings to influence water quality regulations and policies. If possible, purchase a water filtration system for your kitchen and bathroom sinks. Study the strategies and tactics used by Civil Rights Era activists to address environmental issues and learn from their experiences. Expanding the work around water access in addition to drinking water. Focus on protecting wetlands and other natural water filtration systems, as they are crucial for water quality. Ultimately, 'we do not have time to allow our water issues to continue; this is literally life or death,' Adams explained. 'We can The post How Trump's Rollbacks Keep Lead and PFAS in Water for Black Communities appeared first on Capital B News.
