NAACP supports bill to outlaw financial exploitation of African and other nations by "Vulture Funds" which target highly indebted poor countries

THE ISSUE:
A "vulture fund" is a private company that buys up the debt of poor countries at a big discount from the original owner with the purpose of suing the indebted country in court once it has some money (often after debt cancellation). This practice comes at the expense of the citizens of these indebted countries — some of the most impoverished people in the world — as well as taxpayers in countries like the United States, who bear part of the cost.

There are a number of countries that continue to face crippling debt in Africa and throughout the world. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the approximate number of people living on less than a dollar a day has actually increased since 1990. If current trends are not reversed, Africa will be the only region in the world where there will be more poor people in 2015 than there were in 1990. Debt cancellation gives impoverished countries a chance to start fresh and spend more money on health, education, and other essential social services. But while countries and international organizations have been giving some countries debt relief, "vulture funds", which make huge profits at the expense of the citizens of these indebted countries often undermine any benefits that debt relief may have brought.

The actions of several unethical vulture funds are threatening to undo some of the hard-won gains of the international campaign for impoverished country debt cancellation. In 2007 one such vulture fund won $15 million from Zambia, money that was freed up by debt relief and should have been used for the fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty. Zambia was not alone: a 2007 report on vulture funds by the International Monetary Fund showed that 11 out of 24 heavily indebted poor countries (HPIC) were involved in litigation worth a total of about $1 billion on original claims of $427 million. Now Liberia, a country emerging from decades of devastating civil war, faces the possible threat of vulture lawsuits as it tries to clear up its illegitimate debt with the international community. HIPCs are particularly vulnerable to vulture funds which purchase the defaulted debts of HIPC countries at much reduced prices and litigate against the debtor for inflated sums, often in U.S. or English courts, making huge profits on the backs of the world's poorest citizens.

The United States must work to help the world's poorest countries eliminate debilitating debt which undermines their ability to provide basic human needs such food, housing, education, health care and infrastructure development for their people. To assist in this struggle, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA) and others have introduced H.R. 2932, the "Stop Very Unscrupulous Loan Transfers from Underprivileged Countries to Rich, Exploitive Funds Act" or the "Stop VULTURE Funds Act". This legislation would prohibit any U.S. person from engaging in debt profiteering at the expense of another nation and would prohibit any U.S. Court from issuing a judgment which would further sovereign debt profiteering.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ACTION WE NEED YOU TO TAKE!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT MATTER!!!
If you have any questions, call Hilary Shelton at the Washington Bureau at (202) 463-2940.

Read more...

Conference call with Martina Corriea, Jason Ewart, and NAACP President Ben Jealous on the status of the Troy Davis Case

I had the opportunity to sit on a conference call today with NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, Jason Ewart (Attorney for Mr. Troy Davis), and Martina Corriea (Sister of Mr. Troy Davis). The call was to provide updates to media, bloggers, and the community about the status Troy Davis' case.

Most of you will remember that Troy Davis is facing the death penalty in Georgia for allegedly killing a police officer -- but since his trial, seven out of nine witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony, the other suspect in the case (Sylvester Coles) is one of the 2 witnesses who have not recanted, 3 witness have signed statements saying that Sylvester Coles has privately admitted to killing Mr. MacPhail, and there has never been any physical evidence that linked Troy to the crime.

During the conference call, it was made clear that while the Supreme Court has intervened in ordering a new hearing for Mr. Davis, the hearing itself is evidentiary and is not be confused with a new trial. "We're not there yet", stated President Jealous. "This is not a new Trial – just a hearing. The State must not retry or reprove his guilt: Troy must prove his innocence."

Jason Ewart, Attorney for Troy Davis, stated that not only have 7 of the 9 witnesses who testified against Troy recanted, but 6 new witnesses have also come forward to speak out on Troy's behalf. He also talked about the 'rush to judgement' in the original trial that led to Mr. Davis' conviction. "Within two days of the shooting, pictures of Troy were on the front page of the newspaper under the headline 'KILLER'", Ewart stated. "There has always been evidence that there was someone else involved – but the police never followed up on it... they had already committed to Troy".

The investigation turned its focus to Troy Davis shortly after the crime took place when Prime suspect, Sylvester Coles, contacted the police and accused Troy of having committed the crime. The Police never investigated any other leads or suspects.

One of the witnesses who originally identified Troy Davis has since stated that during the Police department's invesitigation, she was only shown one picture (one of Troy Davis), and she was told that everyone else had already identified him, so she should too.

"What has happened in this country that we do not acknowledge the execution of innocent people?", asked Martina Corriea (sister of Troy Davis). She said that from the time Troy decided he would turn himself in and answer questions, he has never been interrogated by the police about the murder.

Now finally he will get his chance. This will be Troy Davis' first evidentiary hearing. The rules of this hearing are different from the standard rules for criminal and civil proceedings. You see, in this case there is no presumption of innocence. Quite the contrary; Mr Davis is presumed guilty. He will have to carry the burden of proof and prove his innocence by 'Clear and Convincing' evidence. Even then his fate is not certain.

Troy Davis's case poses a test for the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed in 1996 as a part of the "Contract with America" and then made retroactive to apply to all cases tried since 1986. The AEDPC was intended to streamline Death Penalty cases and to avoid lengthy and costly endless appeals. However, what it has also done is created a legal quandary wherein a person who is able to successfully prove their innocence after a wrongful conviction may still be denied relief and executed unless they can show that their original conviction was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding". In Layman's terms, if the evidence presented at the first trial would have lead a reasonable person to deem you guilty, the the process is considered to have been fair. And even if new evidence later proves you innocent, the Federal Courts are restricted under the act from granting relief. (The AEDPC was noted by Justice Thomas in his dissenting vote against granting Troy Davis an evidentiary hearing)

So there is still plenty of work left to do. The legal team is faced with the complex challenge of first proving Mr. Davis' innocence, then proving the unconstitutionality of a law that would allow for the execution of an innocent man. And the family has asked that we, readers, bloggers, activists, and organizations, keep the heat up. Keep getting the word out, and keep getting the facts out there in the open. Visit www.IamTroy.com, send emails, write letters, but by all means be heard. Because as Martina said, "if we had the power of the internet 10 or 15 years ago, I believe Troy would be a free man”. So let's do what we can Today...

Read more...

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Testifies Before Congress on Discrimination in Katrina Related Housing Recovery Program

At a hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Financial Services on Thursday, Matthew Colangelo, Director of the NAACP LDF's Economic Justice Group, testified that federal hurricane recovery funds have been distributed in a way that unfairly excludes African American families from returning to their homes in New Orleans.

Colangelo testified before a congressional subcommittee regarding the Road Home Program, which was created by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) to help families that were displaced four years ago by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With an $11 billion budget, the Road Home Program is the largest housing recovery program in American history. Colangelo testified that by linking housing assistance to the depressed values of black families' pre-storm segregated housing, HUD and the LRA have designed a program that awards disproportionately lower grants to African American homeowners, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Housing and Community Development Act.

In New Orleans, as in many cities, homes in predominantly African American communities had lower values than those in white communities, even when the condition, style, and quality of homes were comparable. As a result, African Americans were more likely to receive Road Home grants based on the depressed pre-storm value of their homes, rather than on the cost to repair their homes – leaving African American families far short of the resources they need to restore their homes and communities. This disparity is the subject of a class-action lawsuit that the NAACP LDF has filed in partnership with the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll.

"The 111th Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our nation's largest housing recovery program does not go down in history as a government-sponsored act of housing discrimination," Colangelo testified.

Click here to read LDF's congressional testimony. Click here to read a copy of the complaint that LDF filed in federal court.

Read more...

Join the "Power to End Stroke" Campaign

The Wichita Branch NAACP has partnered with the American Heart Association and the Wichita Black Nurses Association in the 'Power to End Stroke' Campaign.

'Power To End Stroke' is an education and awareness campaign that embraces and celebrates the culture, energy, creativity and lifestyles of Americans. It unites people to help make an impact on the high incidence of stroke within their communities.

Power To End Stroke was created in 2006 by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association to help reach the ASA mission to reduce stroke and risk of stroke by 25% by 2010. It was also meant to raise critical awareness within the African American population. Heart disease and stroke are major health risks for all people, but African Americans are at particularly high risk. Consider this:

• Blacks have almost twice the risk of first-ever strokes compared to whites.
• Blacks have higher death rates for stroke compared to whites.
• The prevalence of high blood pressure in African Americans in the United States is the highest in the world.

To take the pledge and join the Power to End Stroke movement, visit the link on our header.

Sign up and join the cause today!

Read more...

Message from NAACP President Ben Jealous concerning Troy Davis...

We won! Thanks to you and 35,000 other NAACP members and supporters, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced that Troy Davis will finally get his day in court…and a chance to prove his innocence.

The court ordered a federal judge in Georgia to review, what we and many others believe is, the overwhelming evidence of Troy's innocence. Troy was sentenced to death for the 1991 killing of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia.

As you know, the NAACP and other organizations have been fighting to save the life of Troy Davis. There was no physical evidence tying him to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony. And today, finally, the Supreme Court gave Troy a chance to present this evidence and prove his innocence! That's a victory for Troy and his family — and for all of us.

Thank you for all your work to make this happen. I'll be in touch again soon to let you know how else you can help.

Sincerely,

Read more...

A Detailed examination of Health Care Reform myths - with references

Special Thanks to Ron Myles for compiling this list...

PG 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure.

The government(Federal and State) already has the authority to audit any and all books of any employer paying into any tax fund.) The bill does not mandate blanket audits, it expands the currently existing authority.

PG 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - There will be a Government Committee that decides what treatments/benefits you receive.

(For exceptional cases, a panel of BOARD CERTIFIED PHYSICIANS will make recommendations for treatment. The FINAL decision will rest with the patient and patient family and the attending physician(s).)

PG 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - Your HealthCare is Rationed. You can only receive a certain amount of "care" per year.

(There is no limit to the amount of coverage that you will receive under the proposed health care plan, however to prevent fraud and abuse, multiple claims for the same treatment will be monitored and require explanation. This is currently done with ALL HEALTHCARE insurance systems.)

PG 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice.

(Applicants will be given a series of health care providers to chose from. Those health care plans approved for use will have been evaluated as meeting the greatest needs of the public at the most effective cost.)

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US residents, illegal or otherwise

(CURRENTLY, a medical facility can NOT refuse emergency treatment to anyone and currently those individuals being treated do not have to provide identification to prove citizenship. The proposed plan will provide the treatment, BUT the proper authorities will be notified of the individual if they are in an illegal status.)

PG 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Health Card will be issued.

(There are no provisions in the proposed bill that proposes for the government to have "real-time" access to anyone's finances and there is no current technology that would provide that capabilities to the government. The proposed bill does provide for a National Health Care ID card, similar to CURRENT national health care cards for BC/BS, Aetna, CompuCare, etc.)

PG 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for funds transfer.

(There are no provisions for the government to have direct access to anyone's bank account.)

PG 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HealthCare plans under Government control.

(The proposed plan will establish standards and regulations, for medical care provided to the American people, under which all health care provides will be required to conform. Those health care providers who chose not to conform will simply not be on the government provided list available to the American people.)

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HealthCare plans in the Exchange

(This is not true. Private health care plans can operate, but they will not receive government funds. They will receive payments for EMERGENCY treatment provided to those covered under the government plan. This is a current practice of all PRIVATE health care plans)

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifies Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare.

(Again NOT TRUE SEE ABOVE Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC )

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services...... Example - Translation for illegal aliens

(This will provide, but not mandate, that efforts will be made to provide interpreters for non-English speaking patients to improve diagnostics of patient complaints. This is currently a practice of all HIGH quality hospitals and major medical facilities)

PG 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individually for Govt HealthCare plan

(The government may use what ever resources available to get the major task of enrollment done. The significance of ACORN or Americorps, or any other contracted service group, is not relevant, what is important is getting the job done expediently.)

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. #AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed

(AGAIN NOT TRUE SEE ABOVE Pg 29 . And one note AARP does not provide health care or any insurance directly. It uses Hartford and other insurance company.)

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

(This is a much needed service. Many qualified individuals are not aware of Medicaid part B, which would relieve them of the burdensome cost of prescription drugs. Individuals would have the choice of rather they use this service or not. This would be an excellent service to the American people.)

PG 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

(That is the way health care should be. "PRICE FIXING" is a term intended to mislead people. TVA (True Value Assessment) is the payment offered for services that is based on a fair cost and reasonable profit determined by actual value assessment. Once established the payment is FIXED and may not be exceeded except for extenuating circumstances.)

PG 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell you what you can make.

(THIS IS NOT TRUE -- The Government will tell you WHAT THEY WILL PAY FOR YOUR SERVICES)

PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan.

(True: As a payroll deduction. Just like income taxes, etc. Prevents the employee from having to deal with it.)

PG 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

(TRUE Just as they currently have to pay for workman's comp for part time employees.)

PG 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with a payroll 400k & above who does not prov. public option, pays 8% tax on all payroll

(And?)

PG 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between 251k & 400k that don't prov. pub. opt pay 2-6% tax on all payroll

(And?)

PG 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HealthCare according to the Govt will be taxed 2.5%

(True and they will be covered on the government plan. Every American citizen will be covered with quality Health Care))

PG 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill, Any Nonresident Alien is exempt from individual taxes; American taxpayers will pay for them

(This is the CURRENT policy)

PG 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial/personal records

(THIS IS NOT TRUE. There is no current technology that would provide that capabilities to the government.)

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax"

(It will be treated as an entitlement fund, similar to Social Security)

PG 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill, Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be very affected

(NOT TRUE: The government will more closely monitor the payments made and take corrective action if and when required.)

PG 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, regardless of specialty, will all be paid the same

(NOT TRUE AT ALL. Payments will be made bases on level of difficulty, i.e. specialty, and other factors. Additional payment will be made based on extended expertise. THE SAME AS CURRENT PAY FOR: Public Health Service doctors.)

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, professional judgments, etc.

(NOT TRUE. Participating doctors will be paid based on TVA. TVA (True Value Assessment) is the payment offered for services that is based on a fair cost and reasonable profit determined by actual value assessment. Once established the payment is FIXED and may not be exceeded except for extenuating circumstances.)

PG 265 Sec 1131, Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

(THIS STATEMENT IS INTENDED TO MISLEAD OR DECEIVE. What productivity does the health care industry provide?) The health care industries provide a SERVICE not a product.

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

(GOOD)

PG 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

(THIS IS TRUE, and it will reduce the hospital's overall malpractice insurance cost. And reduce the huge costs of law suites against doctors and health care providing facilities.)

PG 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

(THIS IS A HUGE LIE The proposal would regulate self-serving investments of PARTICIPATING physicians.) (A doctor who treats LUNG CANCER should not own stock in a tobacco company.)

PG 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

(THIS IS NOT TRUE)

PG 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required.

(True and this should be the case. The people should have a say.)

PG 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates establishments of outcome based measures.. Rationing

(NOT TRUE AS STATED.)

PG 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing all into Govt HC plan

(NO medical facility will be FORCED into participating, but once accepted they will have to conform to regulations. If they do not, they can be put on an improvement plan or expelled from the participating program.)

PG 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs

(NOT TRUE)

PG 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates Telehealth Advisory Committee. HealthCare by phone

(Currently BC/BS, Aetna, and other HC plans have such a service. It is a GOOD service.)

PG 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty.

(The Government will provide payment and reimbursement for end of life consultations)

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding you in death

(TRUE. A list of APPROVED participants in the Public Health Care Program)

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

(NOT TRUE. Government payments may be suspended if there is no indication by BOARD CERTIFIED PHYSICIANS that the dying patient can be expected to recover.)

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultations" may include an ORDER for end of life plans.

(NOT TRUE. Government payments may be suspended if there is no indication by BOARD CERTIFIED PHYSICIANS that the dying patient can be expected to recover.)

PG 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

(NOT TRUE. Government payments may be suspended if there is no indication by BOARD CERTIFIED PHYSICIANS that the dying patient can be expected to recover.)

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

(NOT TRUE. Government payments may be suspended if there is no indication by BOARD CERTIFIED PHYSICIANS that the dying patient can be expected to recover.)

Read more...

Register now for the 6th Annual Umoja (Unity) 5K Run/Walk

Wichita Black Arts Festival UMOJA Unity 5K (3.1Mile) run/walk

This event is USATF certified/RRCA Sanctioned

August 29, 2009 / 8:00 A.M.
Grove Park @ 27th & Grove

Entry fee:
$20.00 adults, $15.00 16 and under

Group rates for Teams of 4 persons or more
Reduced group rate @ $15.00 per person

To Register, Contact: Brenda Davis 316-218-3363 or Maryon Habtemarium -250-6678


This event is co-sponsored by Via-Christi Health systems and the Wichita Area NAACP

Read more...

The US Commission on Civil Rights calls the Health care reform bill Discriminatory

At issue are legislative efforts to address Health Disparities...

As early as 2007, I began writing about the US Commission on Civil Rights and their tragic decline from a once powerful fact-finding and investigative agency into an ironic caricature of its former self. ( See HERE and see HERE) Through a series of Bush-era politically motivated appointments, the 8-member Commission is now composed of 6 conservatives who are ideologically opposed to the goals and precepts of the American Civil Rights movement.

The Agency that once challenged the Federal Government and Law Enforcement to constructively deal with issues of Voter disenfranchisement, Domestic Violence, and the excesses and abuses of the Criminal Justice System, has been turned on its head. It has spent most of the last few years investigating the effectiveness of HBCU's, developing guidance for school districts to achieve 'Unitary Status' and end their deseg programs, attacking affirmative action, and most recently formally opposing the employee free choice act.

In 2007, the conservative majority on the Commission released a Briefing Report on school segregation which essentially stated that the DOJ should continue in their efforts to assist districts in achieving 'unitary status' wherein they'd be free from the strictures of Brown vs Board or previous court orders brought about through civil rights or discrimination lawsuits. The two dissenting Commissioners, Yaki and Melendez, released a statement in which they wrote, "The quality of the agency’s reports has declined because it has tried to do too much with too little. Hour-and-a-half long monthly (or sometimes bimonthly) briefings with a few guest speakers can at best do nothing more than recycle commonly known truths about civil rights problems. At worst, such briefings serve as thinly-veiled political cover for the Commission majority to issue ideological policy statements to influence pending legislation, administrative decisions or reviews, and judicial cases. It is shameful to trade on the Commission’s past reputation for quality work in this way."

Well, now it seems they're at it again. This time, the US Commission on Civil Rights is releasing a new Briefing report in which they attack the proposed Health Care Reform efforts as 'racially discriminatory' because several of the draft bills being floated around Congress have provisions to specifically address Health Disparities. The conservative majority on the US Commission on Civil Rights views any effort to address issues within a specific racial or ethnic group as a "race-based" remedy and therefore deems said efforts as preferential to those they seek to address.

African Americans have the shortest life expectancy of any racial or ethnic group in America. African Americans have statistically higher rates of hypertension, stroke, diabetes, HIV, perinatal diseases, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, SIDS, low birth weight babies, etc... YET health care Access as a Civil Right has never come up on the Commission's radar. But the fact that draft versions of a Health Care reform bill would seek to address these issues by promoting and encouraging 'cultural competency' among health care providers has managed to summon the Commission into action.

The provision that has raised their ire reads in part:

The secretary, "shall design and implement the payment mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner that — (1) seeks to reduce health disparities (including racial, ethnic and other disparities)." (House Bill Section 224)

The notion that targeted spending is inherently discriminatory is simply false. The GI bill is not 'discriminatory' against non-veterans. Social Security is not 'discriminatory' against the young. Breast Cancer research is not 'discriminatory' against men. Prostate Cancer research is not 'discriminatory' against women... We as a nation have often tended to issues that have some disparate impact on one or more segments of our society. And in a matter as sensitive as health care and health dispaities; one where the disparities are literally matters of life and death; we should expect no less...

Wade Henderson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights described this recent effort by saying, "The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is overstepping its bounds yet again with another slanted and incorrect interpretation of logical and constitutional standards,". The group is "injecting themselves in the health care debate without any expertise and understanding of how the training in the House bill will work."

Read more...

HR 3149 Aims to end the use of Credit Reports in Hiring

At the Centennial Convention of the NAACP, the delegates unanimously passed a resolution opposing the use of Credit Reports in Employment and calling for all NAACP units to partner with like-minded organizations to bring an end to this practice.

Resolution: Use of Credit History in Employment
Therefore be it resolved, that the NAACP stands opposed to the use of credit reports in hiring as a form of economic discrimination, and will partner with allied organizations to conduct educational forums as well as working through the local, State, and Federal legislative process to make sure that such practices are prohibited.

House Bill 3149; the Equal Employment for All Act (HR3149) would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to generally prohibit the use of consumer credit checks in employment/hiring decisions.

Under the bill, employers would be prohibited from using information in a consumer report or investigative consumer report pertaining to an employee or applicant’s creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity when making hiring determinations or taking adverse employment actions as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Notably, this prohibition would apply even if the employee or applicant consents to such use. The bill would establish exceptions when: (1) the employee or applicant applies for, or currently holds, employment that requires national security or FDIC clearance; (2) the employee or applicant applies for, or currently holds, employment with a state or local government agency that otherwise requires use of a consumer report; (3) the employee or applicant applies for, or currently holds, a supervisory, managerial, professional, or executive position at a financial institution; or (4) otherwise required by law.

The law is necessary because disaggregated credit data shows graduated disparities in credit scoring between racial and socio-economic groups. The use of credit checks for the purposes of making employment decisions would have a disparate impact on minorities and those from lower socio-economic classes, who are statistically likely to have lower credit scores than their more affluent counterparts. Furthermore, there is no reliable data that indicates that Credit History is any indicator of future job performance.

"There is no social science to support the assumption that credit histories reliably predict success on the job…this law would help to stop the vicious cycle of those who seek new job opportunities to pay their creditors but cannot obtain work because they lost a job and have been unable to pay their creditors," said Audrey Wiggins, director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law's Employment Discrimination.

The Bill is currently in the House Committee on Financial Services.

Read more...

Civil Rights in the Supreme Court: Wrapping up the 2008-2009 Term

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the final decisions of its 2008-2009 term, a year that saw many cases with civil rights implications. Here are summaries of some of these cases:

AT&T v. Hulteen: This case was filed by four women who took pregnancy leave at AT&T before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act became law in 1978 and, as a result, received smaller pensions than other workers who took short term disability leave during the same time period. The women argued that their pensions should be recalculated in line with the Act, but the Court ruled that the Act cannot be applied retroactively.

Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, called the Court's decision "disgraceful, unfair, and a terrible blow to the equal opportunity laws women and people of color have long relied on." Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said "This ruling ... undermines Congress’s intent in passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to ensure that women would never again be adversely affected by their pregnancies, and denies Ms. Hulteen and her colleagues the equal compensation to which they are entitled."

Bartlett v. Strickland: The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that keeps minority votes from being diluted during redistricting doesn't apply in districts where a minority group makes up less than 50 percent of the voting age population. However, the Court found that "racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history." The ruling could have implications for the next round of redistricting that will follow the completion and release of the 2010 Census.

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson City: The Court ruled unanimously that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers cannot retaliate against employees that cooperate with an internal investigation of sexual harassment.

Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L.L.C.: In its 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that states, not just federal authorities, can enforce their own fair lending and consumer protection laws against national banks. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia found that in instances where state and federal law do not explicitly conflict, states should be free to enforce their civil rights laws in court. Otherwise, said Scalia, "the bark remains, but the bite does not."

District Attorney's Office v. Osborne: A divided Court ruled 5-4 that convicted criminals do not have a constitutional right to access evidence used at trial to conduct DNA testing. Alaska, the site of the case, is one of a small handful of states that do not allow for post-conviction testing of DNA. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the court is reluctant to create "a new constitutional code of rules for handling DNA" and left it up to the states and Congress to decide.

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution’s due process clause required allowing [a defendant] to have access to DNA evidence in his case. “For reasons the state has been unable or unwilling to articulate,” Justice Stevens wrote, “it refuses to allow [the defendant] to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.”

Peter Neufeld, a director of the Innocence Project, said the decision would have pernicious consequences. “It’s unquestionable that some people in some states who are factually innocent will not get DNA testing and will languish in prison,” Mr. Neufeld said. “Some of them will die in prison.”

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal assistance, does not prevent people from also making constitutional claims of sex discrimination. Parents of a kindergartener sued the school under both Title IX and Section 1983, which gives people the right to sue for constitutional violations, when they believed that school officials did not adequately respond to their daughter's complaints of sexual harassment by another student.

Forest Grove School District v. T.A.: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), if a public school is unwilling or unable to provide a "free appropriate public education" for a disabled child, a court can require the public school to reimburse parents for the cost of sending the student to an appropriate private school. In this case, the Court ruled 6-3 that reimbursement can be required even if the child has not previously received special education services from the public school.

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: In a 5-4 decision, the Court made it harder for employees to win age discrimination lawsuits by requiring that plaintiffs prove that age was the sole reason for an employer's actions. Previously, the employers had to prove that age was not a motivating factor in their decision, but this ruling shifts the full burden of proof in age discrimination lawsuits to employees. "By putting on the worker the entire burden of demonstrating the absence or insignificance of such factors, the majority has effectively freed employers to discriminate against older workers, as long as they do not actually state that they are singling out an employee for adverse treatment solely because of age," said the National Senior Citizens Law Center in a statement.

Horne v. Flores: Parents and students in Arizona sued the state for failing to comply with the Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA), which requires schools to "take appropriate action to overcome language barriers" that keep students from equally participating in instruction. Arizona increased funding and made structural changes to its English-language learner programs, but the district court ruled these changes inadequate, held the state in contempt, and imposed a fine. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court for further hearings, unsatisfied with the way that the district court evaluated the changes that Arizona made to its English language programs. "The Court's ruling discounts the impact of Arizona's failure, for almost two decades, to provide equal educational opportunities to its schoolchildren," stated John Payton, LDF's President and Director-Counsel.

Northwest Austin Municipal District No. 1 v. Holder: In its 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that all individual jurisdictions should have the opportunity to bail out of a provision in the Voting Rights Act that requires federal preclearance for changes in election procedures. However, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the provision itself.

Ricci v. DeStefano: In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., held an exam to determine which firefighters could be promoted to management. After receiving the test results, the city concluded that the test was biased and chose to abandon the exam, in order to avoid facing a discrimination lawsuit. This case was filed by one Latino and seventeen White firefighters who had taken the exam. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that by abandoning the exam, the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The decision creates a new standard that makes it hard for employers to rectify situations where a policy is found to have a discriminatory effect after the policy has been applied. "Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination, said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "The Court's decision is clearly contrary to Congress' intent in passing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It leaves employers in a quandary, and gives them a disincentive to voluntarily ensure a fair workplace."

Spears v. United States: In a 5-4 ruling, the Court clarified its 2007 ruling Kimborough v. United States, which allowed judges to deviate from federal sentencing guidelines on crack and powder cocaine. The Court in Spears said that judges can depart from the guidelines, which punish crack cocaine offenses 100 times more harshly than powder cocaine offenses, simply because they disagree with the guidelines and find them too harsh.

Read more...

Bills to Restore Voting Rights to Ex-Felons Introduced in Congress

by Jessica Agarwal;
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

Last week, both the Senate and the House introduced the Democracy Restoration Act, legislation that would restore the right to vote in federal elections to millions of Americans with felony convictions who have completed their prison sentences.

Approximately 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of past felony convictions. Four million of them are out of prison, living, working, and raising families in their communities and would have their federal voting rights restored under this legislation.

State law on voting rights for ex-felons vary. Maine and Vermont allow everyone with a felony conviction to vote, even those who remaine incarcerated. Virginia and Kentucky permanently deny voting rights to those with felony convictions. Most states fall in between those two extremes, leading to widespread confusion among citizens and poll workers which sometimes leads to eligible citizens being denied the right to vote.

Felony disenfranchisement laws were originally passed during the Jim Crow-era to prevent Blacks from participating in elections. If current trends continue, one-third of the next generation of African-American men will be disenfranchised during their lifetime. The U.S. is one of few western democracies that the permanent disenfranchisement of those with past felony convictions.

"Voting helps to build a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to community; denying this fundamental right does nothing to help people with a conviction in their past become better citizens," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D. Md. "The expansion of voting rights to the poor, women, minorities and young people is one of the greatest stories in our country's history. We should continue this legacy by expanding the right to vote to those who have fully paid their debt to society."

Read more...

Action Alert: Final Senate Vote on confirmation of NAACP-supported nominee Sonia Sotomayor scheduled to begin tomorrow

THE ISSUE:
On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 13 yeas to 6 nays, supported the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to serve as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. The full senate is expected to begin debate on the nomination on Tuesday, August 4, with a final vote on her confirmation scheduled for the end of the week. If confirmed Judge Sotomayor will take a seat on the highest court of the land when it begins its next session in October.

Sonia Sotomayor is an excellent choice. The daughter of immigrant parents (her father, a tool-and-die worker with a third grade education, died when she was nine years old; her mother, a nurse, raised Judge Sotomayor and her brother on a very modest salary), she grew up in the housing projects in the Bronx. She went on to graduate from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976, and then from Yale Law School (where she was the editor of the law journal) in 1979.

After law school she got a job as an assistant district attorney in New York City, where she prosecuted cases involving police brutality, murder, child pornography and assaults. After a time in private practice, she was nominated in 1991 by President George H. Bush to serve as a federal judge for the U.S. District Court, southern District of New York. Six years later, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as an appellate judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where she has served since 1998. She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience. If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

A thorough review of Judge Sotomayor's record shows that she is an intelligent jurist with mainstream values, a proven commitment to civil rights protection and an even temperament. Her 17 years on the federal bench show that she takes an impartial and balanced approach to the cases before her, and that she is above all fair.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ACTION WE NEED YOU TO TAKE!!!

Tech Tags: Sotomayor Supreme+Court NAACP Action+Alert Civil+Rights

Read more...

Louisiana aims to lower its drop-out rate BY LOWERING THEIR GRADUATION STANDARDS!

What in the world is going on? First California, and now This!

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recently signed two bills that aim to reduce Louisiana's school dropout rate by lowering educational standards and creating a new "career track" high school diploma. The bills: House Bill 612 and Senate Bill 259, require school districts to establish a "Career Track" diploma to capture those students who are not succeeding on the standard educational track, lower their academic requirements, and provide them with more vocational and technical courses.

Under the new law, students opting for the new alternative track diploma, could still pass the eighth-grade LEAP test and be promoted into the 9th grade, even if they fail the English or math portions.

As an educational advocate, I find this deeply disturbing. The world is becoming increasingly high tech and the job market of tomorrow will require higher and more sophisticated skills than we've seen to date. Lowering the bar and lessening educational standards is absolutely a step in the wrong direction; NO school district should be issuing diplomas to students who are woefully unprepared and ill-equipped to compete. No district should improve their educational outcomes by suspending the normal rules for failure. No district should de-value the diplomas they offer by diminishing the standard it represents. If students are not achieving, then we should provide them with the necessary assistance and support they need in order to achieve. But to simply remake the rules so that what once was failure will now be acceptable may help the stats in the short term, but it will certainly hurt the children in the long run.

Read more...

NAACP Supported Legislation to End racial disparities in Cocaine Sentencing passes the House Judiciary Committee

Bill to end 100:1 crack / powder cocaine sentencing disparity will now go before the full House of Representatives

NAACP-supported legislation to end the 100:1 crack / powder cocaine sentencing disparity passed the House Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation and is on its way to consideration by the full House of Representatives. Specifically, H.R. 3245, the “Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009”, which was originally introduced with bi-partisan support by Congressman (and Former NAACP Branch President) Robert “Bobby” Scott (VA) was agreed to on Wednesday, July 29 2009 by a vote of 16 yeas to 9 nays.

Currently, as a result of federal law passed in 1986, there is a huge (100 to 1) disparity between the penalty for possession of crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Specifically, a person must possess 500 grams of powder cocaine before they are subject to the same mandatory prison sentence (5 years) as an individual who is convicted of possessing just 5 grams of crack cocaine (despite the fact that pharmacologically, these two drugs are identical). One of the effects of this legislation is that small-scale crack cocaine users are punished much more severely than powder cocaine users and their suppliers.

Everyone seems to agree that crack cocaine use is higher among Caucasians than any other group: most authorities estimate that more than 66% of those who use crack cocaine are white. Yet in 2006, 82% of those convicted and sentenced under federal crack cocaine laws were African American. When you add in Hispanics, the percentage climbs to above 96%. Since enactment of this law, the 100 to 1 ratio has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on the African American and Hispanic communities. The fact that this law carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence also means that people of color are being put in prisons at much higher rates than their Caucasian counterparts, and the judges have no discretion to mitigate the sentence for first-time or nonviolent offenders or in special circumstances.

Opposition to the crack cocaine sentencing disparity and mandatory minimum sentences has been voiced by people as diverse as the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a host of civil rights leaders. Furthermore, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Attorney General Holder have all expressed their strong support for eliminating the sentencing disparity, and legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate very soon where we have also seen bipartisan support for eliminating this glaring, and racially dubious, injustice.

IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, WE MUST ENCOURAGE ALL OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE US HOUSE AND SENATE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO ELIMINATE THE CRACK / POWDER COCAINE SENTENCING DISPARITY WHEN THE LEGISLATION COMES BEFORE THEM IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.

Read more...