Union Protests and Rallies make their way into Kansas

More than a thousand people rallied at the Kansas Statehouse on Saturday for a "Save the American Dream" rally on the south steps of the Statehouse. The rally was attended by Labor, and Advocacy, and Community organizations from around the State, all joining in solidarity to express support for organized labor.

This followed a demonstration inside the Capital last Thursday as the House passed HB2130. If it clears the Senate, the bill will eliminate a paycheck checkoff that allows workers to voluntarily have donations to their union's political action committee deducted directly from their wages. That protest drew nearly a hundred union workers to the Capital and gallery.

The Kansas State Conference of the NAACP stands in full support of the efforts of Organized Labor to maintain collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We believe that the right of workers to organize, to bargain as a group for fair wages and better working conditions, is in line with our best democratic traditions and should not be compromised. The organized Labor movement has afforded ordinary working class men and women the opportunity to fairly negotiate the true value of their goods and services. And at a time of pronounced fiscal uncertainties, now it not the time to start stripping away the rights or silencing the voices of everyday working people so as to protect and safeguard the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

In the late 90's, when the Wichita Branch of the NAACP was faced with serious financial challenges, it was organized labor that came forward and offered us meeting space and access to copies and fax machines so that we could rebuild our organization and continue to serve our community. Now, it is our turn to stand with you... And we do so Proudly.

Read more...

Kansas SB93 on Racial Profiling and the anatomy of a "Loophole"

For more than 8 years, local activists and Legislators in Wichita worked to craft a bill that would prohibit the practice of Racial Profiling in the State of Kansas. In 2006, Senate Bill 77, as introduced by then State Senator Donald Betts was passed and signed into law. But in the deliberation process, as the bill was worked through the legislature, language was included in the definition of Racial Profiling that community activists found onerous and unacceptable. The bill included a "Loophole" - language specifically designed to make an otherwise sensible bill legally unenforceable. The definition of Racial Profiling per current state statute in Kansas reads:

(d) "Racial Profiling" means the practice of a law enforcement officer or agency relying, as the sole factor, on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or religious dress in selecting which individuals to subject to routine investigatory activities, or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial routine investigatory activity. Racial profiling does not include reliance on such criteria in combination with other identifying factors when the law enforcement officer or agency is seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or religious dress is part of the description of the suspect.

Local activists and members of the coalition of groups and organizations who came together to work for the passage of Racial Profiling legislation have been uniformly opposed to that language since its passage; and we have worked in each successive session to have the "Sole Factor" language stricken. The inclusion of that phrase, "as the sole factor" makes the statute virtually unenforceable, because all any Officer has to do in order to contest a charge of profiling is to proffer any additional reason, thought, or consideration. In fact, the only way, under existing statute, that you could clearly define a case of Racial Profiling would be if an Officer stopped you and when asked the reason for the stop, he or she would have to reply 'I stopped you because you're black'. Because the utterance of any other reasons or statements would technically clear them of the charge.

After years of deliberation and argument, two bills were introduced this session each with a revised definition of Racial Profiling, each without the "sole factor language" included. The two bills were recently consolidated and now SB82 has been incorporated into and will move forward as SB93. In the reconciliation of the two bills a NEW legal loophole was inserted to replace the former "sole factor" loophole. The newly proposed definition of Racial Profiling reads:

(d)    "Racial or other biased-based policing" means the unreasonable use of race, ethnicity, national origin, socio-economic status, gender or religion by a law enforcement officer in deciding to initiate an enforcement action. It is not biased racial or other biased-based policing when race, ethnicity, national origin, socio-economic status, gender or religion is used in combination with other identifying factors as part of a specific individual description to initiate an enforcement action

I was actually in the Senate chamber when Senator David Haley, one of the parties who has worked on this legislation from the very beginning, asked the question: "How do you define 'Unreasonable'?... and does this imply that there are "Reasonable" applications of racial or biased based policing?"

The response? - "Well that's something the Courts will have to decide"

Ladies and Gentlemen, THAT is a legal loophole. That is how they are deployed. Legal loopholes are used to thwart efforts to bring about fairness under law and to protect wrongdoers through the introduction of vague and subjective language that allows departments and courts to excuse bad behavior as simply matters of 'interpretation'.

"No Mr. Washington, you hadn't done anything wrong or illegal, and no there was no legitimate reason to stop you and search your vehicle, and we are terribly sorry about the professional embarrassment we caused you by having you sit out on the curb as we let our canine units climb through your car, and we're also sorry that we made you late for work... But, it is a very nice car, and you're a relatively young man, so under the circumstances, I don't think that's unreasonable..."
...

To my colleagues and friends in the legislature, particularly those who regularly read our blog and or our newsletter... With all due respect, it is insulting that we have to continuously repeat this same futile exercise. It would be better to have NO BILL AT ALL then to continue to foist hollow and vacuous bills that are as meaningless as they are unenforceable.

At the beginning of this most recent effort, Law Enforcement agencies stipulated the existence of Racial Profiling in Kansas. Our most recent study also confirms it. No one is contesting the fact that it is a real and determinable phenomena and that it occurs here in our State. But THIS language is carefully crafted to ensure that NO ONE is ever held accountable for it, and that is simply unacceptable.

Next, the bill will head to the House. As soon as the committee is assigned, we will post information here on the blog so that you can contact the members of the Committee and ask them to pass a Honest bill; one without gimmicks or loopholes, and one that specifically strikes the subjective qualifying term "unreasonable" from its definition.

Scan the QR Code for a mobile copy of SB93 - the Kansas Racial Profiling Act

Read more...

State President KMyles full testimony on HB2197 - Public Defenders

Chairman Colloton, Vice Chairman Kinzer, and members of the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice,

My name is Kevin Myles and I am the President of the Kansas State Conference of the NAACP, representing more than 2,000 registered voters throughout the State of Kansas.

We are offering our qualified support to House Bill 2197. Our support is qualified because while we firmly support the intent of this bill to protect and safeguard the rights of criminal defendants, we do not believe the language is quite comprehensive enough to achieve this goal.

The language is section 1, parts A and B both speak to the rights of the Public Defender to withdraw from a case when they feel their caseload would preclude them from providing an adequate defense.

We wholeheartedly support any effort to ensure that all criminal defendants are afforded competent and adequate representation. We are therefore supportive of the language in Section 1 parts A and B in so far as it allows Defense Attorney’s who are unable to provide such a defense t o remove themselves so that other less burdened attorney’s may do so.

But while the bill clearly delineates the rights of public defenders, we believe it does not adequately speak to or protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of defendants. We want to see the system address the issue of unmanageable caseloads. But we do NOT want to create a situation wherein defendants could find themselves unable to obtain representation because the caseloads in a given public defender’s office were too high.

The right to counsel is guaranteed to all citizens through the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution. But that right is diminished when Public Defenders are faced with large and unmanageable caseloads which prevent them from spending the necessary time it takes to provide an adequate defense. Allowing individual Defense Attorneys to remove themselves from a case solves only half of the problem. The larger and more pressing question is; How do we ensure that all defendants are allowed to exercise their right to counsel and to enjoy adequate representation when caseloads become excessive?

What we would ask of the Committee of Corrections and Juvenile Justice is that you amend this bill to strengthen the Public Defender and Indigent defense system by the provision of additional safeguards and resources.

We ask that you would amend this bill to provide guidelines for manageable caseloads, much as the American Bar Association did when it issued its guidelines that Attorneys should not handle more than 150 felony cases per year. We also ask that you stipulate that when caseloads are significantly higher than the guidelines you would set, that the State would allocate additional resources so as to ensure that all citizens were afforded the full measure of their rights under the constitution.

Respectfully,

Kevin Myles
President; Kansas State Conference of the NAACP
President; Wichita Branch NAACP

Read more...

Kansas HB2193 would change the definition of "At-Risk" students - Here's what that means to you!

House Bill 2193 would change the State’s definition of “At-Risk” and allow for the redistribution of scarce Title I Funds. Federal Title I Funds are allocated to the States and are intended to help school districts address the issues associated with urban poverty. They are distributed to the States based on the number of children within the districts who qualify for free or reduced lunches.

Title I funds are intended to compensate for the fact that children who grow up in poverty are far less likely to have an educational support system at home as parents who are struggling to provide basic necessities are often unable to spend much quality time with their children. Children who grow up in poverty are also far more likely to spend large amounts of time in poor quality daycare, a situation which is known to have a negative impact on a child's emotional health. Children who grow up in poverty also move more frequently and are far more likely to attend under-funded schools. And teenagers who live in poverty are significantly more likely to experiment with drugs, alcohol, and risky sexual behavior. Poor teens are also more likely to engage in unlawful acts, ranging from minor shoplifting to serious gang activity.

HB2193 would honor the intent of “At-Risk” funding only until the fourth grade. After the fourth grade, the bill would change the State’s definition of “At-Risk” to include any students who failed standardized tests. This would be a windfall for rural districts and districts without a significant number of poor or minority students, as they would be able to divert some of the federal dollars, that had been earmarked for combating the insidious effects of urban poverty, for use in their own facilities.

But a far greater concern is what this proposal could do to efforts to eliminate the academic achievement gap. This proposal, under the guise of distributing federal dollars to all students who need help, would directly tie school funding to the number of students who fail to meet proficiency standards on standardized tests. This legislation would de-incentivize efforts to eliminate the academic achievement gap by penalizing schools for improved outcomes. Why would districts continue to invest in improving minority student outcomes, if better test scores would lead to concomitant reductions in school funding?

The Kansas State Conference of NAACP Branches supports the original language and intent of Title I funding and we are fighting to defeat this bill.

Read more...

State President K Myles full testimony against the proposed Kansas Voter ID Bill

Testimony regarding HB 2067 – Voter Photographic ID Requirements (February 9th, 2010)

Chairman Schwab, Vice Chairman Goico, and members of the Committee on Elections,

My name is Kevin Myles and I am the President of the Kansas State Conference of the NAACP, representing more than 2,000 registered voters throughout the State of Kansas.

We are here to voice our opposition to HB2067, the proposed Voter ID bill. To be clear, we are not opposed to efforts to ensure the integrity of our voting system in principle, we are opposed to the specific plans that the Secretary has put forth. You will hear testimony today regarding the cost of this measure, the fact that our current system has already proven secure, the fact that necessary changes and reforms to our current system could be handled administratively, and that the proposed consolidation of powers within the Secretary of State’s office is absolutely unwarranted. We will therefore direct our testimony to the issue of disenfranchisement, and how provisions in this current proposal would result in voter suppression.

This issue should be of grave concern to us all. For while we should be undoubtedly be concerned if even a single fraudulent vote is cast, we should be even more concerned if even a single legal voter is disenfranchised. And that is because voting is one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. No law, no tariff, and no ordinance should ever be imposed that would deprive any Legal, Law Abiding, American citizen of the franchise.

The Secretary's proposed bill requires that an Election Officer certify a person’s immigration status at the time of registration. Now that's not particularly onerous, but the language in Section 7, subparagraph L, parts 1 through 6; specifies that their status must be confirmed by submission of a physical drivers license, birth certificate, or passport, or by a photo‐copy of said documents. What this means is, if a group or organization such as the NAACP or the League of Women Voters wanted to set up a table to register people to vote at a fair or a community forum, as both organizations have done for more than 50 years, unless the unregistered prospective voters happened to have a photo copy of their license in their pockets, they could not be registered.

In 2008, the Wichita NAACP partnered with KDGS 93.9 Radio Station, Sunflower Community Action, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, and Outback Steakhouse, to host a community Registration forum in a popular Wichita Park. We were joined in the park by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer who even helped us register people to vote in that traditionally underserved area. We gathered more than 350 registrations in just a few short hours. But had this proposed bill been in effect at the time, ALL 350 LEGAL REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE SECRETARY’S OFFICE.

Members of the Committee, please consider that there is NO additional information that could be gleaned from a photo copy of someone’s driver’s license that could not just as easily be obtained through a query of their driver’s license number, as is permissible under current statute. In fact, a folded and mailed photo copy of a drivers license, which could quite easily be forged or manufactured, could not itself serve as verification of citizenship. Instead, upon receipt of such a document, election officials would still have to verify a citizen’s voting credentials and citizenship through a query of their Drivers license number. Current statute allows for the submission of a Drivers License number with a Voter Registration application – but this proposed bill radically changes that process, and adds an obstacle for registration; one that provides NO net benefit in terms of information or ease of processing, but would instead virtually eliminate traditional get‐out‐the‐vote drives and door‐to‐door canvassing, and would authorize the outright rejection of registration applications from legal, law abiding, American citizens.

The intent of this newly included language becomes even more dubious when you consider that the bill also contains specific language that would ensure that other communities are not similarly disenfranchised. On page 18, in Section 7, subparagraph L, part 4; naturalized citizens would be allowed to submit the number of their certificate of naturalization without having to obtain and submit paper copies. Section 7, subparagraph L, part 6; allows Native Americans to submit their tribal enrollment number without having to obtain and mail in paper copies. – The use of a Document number is a uniform and common practice that facilitates on‐site registrations while still protecting people’s personal data ‐ But native born American citizens, low income persons who would typically be registered in a traditional get‐out‐the‐vote type drive or initiative will no longer be allowed to register using their driver’s license number as is currently permissible in EVERY STATE in the Nation. They will no longer be allowed to register at community forums or workshops after hearing and learning about the issues. This bill places an unnecessary bureaucratic obstacle in their path which would prevent on‐site registrations in most instances. Instead they will be required to go to Kinko’s to obtain paper copies of their personal documents just to prevent the Secretary’s Office from rejecting their Legal and Legitimate registrations.

On Monday, you heard testimony from our Secretary of State regarding the very foundation of our Nation, and I quote, "A constitutional republic rests on two foundations; one is the Constitution itself, the other is the trust of the citizenry that elections are free and that the will of the people is being conveyed securely through elections that are free from fraud." He went on to say that when “that trust begins to break down, the foundation of the republic erodes."

I would respectfully ask that we each reconsider that testimony today. For if the Secretary is to be believed, then one of the foundations of society is the trust of the citizenry that elections are FREE and THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS BEING CONVEYED.

But how are we to reconcile that foundational principle with the provisions in this bill that would allow for the rejection of Voter Registration applications; not for fraud, not for ineligibility, but for failure to comply with an newly created administrative hurdle; one that solves NO problems, one that serves no necessary purpose, and one that provides no additional information that is not already provided under current statute? How are we to trust that our elections are FREE and representative of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, when this body is being asked to consider a bill whose newly inserted language would inhibit the legal and legitimate registration of American Citizens, who by circumstance find themselves poor or low income, through the unnecessary prohibition of traditional get‐out‐the‐vote activities?

We would also ask that you consider that the bill would require that ALL voters show their driver’s license or photo ID at their polling place. But, it does not instruct the election workers to examine the documents to determine citizenship or eligibility. Rather, it instructs election officials to compare the name and address as recorded on the photo ID with the information recorded in the Voter Registration database. And that if there is a discrepancy between their driver's license and the information contained in the Voter Registration records (such as a change of address, or change of last name due to marriage), that legally registered voter would be given only a provisional ballot. Their only other alternative, after having stood in line and waiting on a Tuesday afternoon, only to find out their status was being challenged by an administrative database discrepancy, would be to go home, grab a utility bill, go back to the polling station and start in the line all over again. Many people finding themselves in a similar situation would simply go back to work, and their votes would be lost.

Chairman Schwab and members of the committee, we ask that you seriously consider the fact that while these clear and foreseeable outcomes may be in fact be unintended, they are never‐the‐less very well known and well documented Voter Suppression tactics. The States of Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, and Florida have all faced legal or administrative action after implementing procedures and policies that created needless technical barriers to voter registrations as this bill would do. And the States of Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin, have all faced legal action as a result of “no match – no vote” policies where citizens ballots were challenged as a result of typographical or database discrepancies (such as address changes, married names, and/or hyphenated names) as this bill would allow.

When you consider the costs of this proposal: When you consider the fact that the Secretary testified last week concerning 221 cases of voter fraud, yet a review of his submitted testimony shows that fewer than 5 of those cases could have been prevented through the implementation of this bill: When you consider the fact that the language in this bill will create unnecessary obstacles for legal and law‐abiding citizens and may prevent otherwise qualified voters from exercising their constitutional right to participate in our elections: we ask you to reject this bill.

Respectfully,
Kevin Myles
President; Kansas State Conference of NAACP Branches

Download a PDF Copy


Scan for Mobile Copy

Read more...

NAACP LDF successfully defends race-conscious admission in higher education

Federal Court Upholds UT Austin’s Admissions Plan as a Constitutional Pursuit of Diversity

(New York, NY) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the admissions program utilized by the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) to assemble a diverse student body. Fisher v. Texas is the first federal appellate challenge to the use of race in university admissions since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. The Fifth Circuit’s unanimous decision affirms that UT Austin’s admissions plan is entirely consistent with Grutter.

In an opinion authored by Judge Patrick Higginbotham, the Fifth Circuit recognized “[t]he need for a state’s leading educational institution to foster civic engagement and maintain visibly open paths to leadership.” Today’s opinion further emphasized that “cultivating paths to leadership for underrepresented groups serves both the individual and the public, sustaining an infrastructure of leaders in an increasingly pluralistic society.”

“Our nation’s future depends on students being exposed to diversity in their formative educational experiences,” said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF).

This lawsuit was launched in 2008 by two white students who were denied entry to UT Austin. Most students are admitted to UT Austin under the Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to all Texas students in the top ten percent of their high school class. The remaining students are admitted under a holistic admissions process that considers race as one of many factors in a student’s application file.

During oral argument before the Fifth Circuit and in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the Black Student Alliance at UT Austin, LDF emphasized the isolation experienced by the small numbers of African-American students who enrolled at UT Austin in the eight-year period before it reinstituted race as a factor in admissions for the 2005 entering class. By themselves, the Top Ten Percent Plan and other race-neutral efforts that the University pursued were insufficient to achieve a critical mass of African-American students and other students of color. As a consequence, LDF argued that all students were deprived of the educational benefits of diversity. It was for this reason, that UT Austin decided, after careful evaluation, to institute the limited race-conscious admissions process which the Fifth Circuit panel today unanimously agreed is a lawful application of Grutter.

“Today’s ruling affirms that universities have wide latitude to seek diversity in their student bodies,” said LDF Assistant Counsel Joshua Civin, who presented oral argument in the Fifth Circuit on behalf of LDF and the Black Student Alliance.

The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP is co-counsel with LDF in this case. Also supporting UT Austin’s position in this case were the United States, the American Council of Education and other higher education organizations, and numerous civil rights groups including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and the Asian American Justice Center.

Read more...

Governor Brownback issues an ERO removing the independence of the Kansas Human Rights Commission

EROs (Executive Reorganization Orders) are provided for in the Kansas Constitution. They enable a Governor to transfer, abolish, consolidate, or coordinate agencies and functions within the executive branch of state government. An ERO becomes effective July 1 following its transmittal to the Legislature, unless within 60 calendar days either the Senate or the House adopts a resolution disapproving the ERO. After an ERO takes effect, it becomes like statute and the Legislature then has the option of amending or repealing an ERO in the same way it would amend any other legislation.

This year, in response to the looming budget issues, Governor Sam Brownback issued a number of ERO's that would eliminate or consolidate State Agencies. While no one could argue that a $550,000,000.00 dollar shortfall would not require significant reorganization, one ERO in particular will have a negative impact on the community that outweighs any potential cost savings.

Governor Brownback issued an ERO that eliminating several positions at the Kansas Human Rights Commission, and moving their investigations under the Attorney General's Office. While the move is planned to save $200,000.00, the real cost to citizens is the loss of the ONLY independent investigative body with statutory enforcement power in the State of Kansas. Now, as a consequence, persons wishing to file a complaint against a State Agency would have to file those complaints with the agency's Attorney of Record! This will remove any independent investigative authority, which is provided by statute, and will replace it with a system where the State will investigate and police itself.

We, as a body, oppose this ERO and we call upon Governor Brownback to rescind it, or the Legislature to block it through passage of a resolution, or to repeal it through the Legislative process.

I was recently copied in on a letter written by retired KHRC Chairman Emeritus James Butler regarding this particular ERO. I am posting it here with his permission...

Dear Senator Reitz:

I served the State of Kansas for many years as Chairman and Commissioner to the Kansas Human Rights Commission, from 1979 to 2005, when I retired as the Chairman. During my tenure, I served under five governors: former Governors John Carlin, Mike Hayden, Joan Finney, Bill Graves and Kathleen Sebelius.

I was informed recently that Governor Brownback made a proposal for the Kansas Human Rights Commission's fiscal year 2012 budget to transfer the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) to the Kansas Attorney General's office for operation. I was shocked when I read the proposal and I still am because the office of Attorney General is an elected office and, for the first time in the history of the Commission, the Commission would be under the direction of an elected state office and political influence, subject to whatever bias may exist at any particular time. This move would eliminate 58 years of independent decision making in the area of civil rights in the State of Kansas.

The history of the KHRC shows that this is a radical move. Since its establishment in 1953 and through the years, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination through K.S.A. 44-1003 has mandated that a commission direct and govern the KHRC, and not the governor, or any elective office, which might be subject to political influence and conflicts of interest in an area which could give rise to such issues. The Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD) sets up a system of checks and balances in the selection of each Commissioner to establish the independence of the decision making process of the KHRC. The KAAD dictates how each memeber of the Commission is chosen or appointed by the Governor (the executive branch), but that selection must be confirmed by the Senate (the legislative branch). K.S.A. 44-1003 mandates that no more than four (4) members of the commission can be from the same political party and this is another recognition that political influence is an inherent issue in the decision making process of the KHRC. Governor Brownback's recommendation eliminates the Commission in favor of the Attorney General or his designee acting as the final decision maker in civil rights cases, which will be a first in Kansas government.

The rationale for the recommendation is saving money and efficiency in government, but the KHRC has been the most efficient and cost effective operation in Kansas government for the past few years. The Commission has been very prudent in spending money, not having excessive travel to national conferences and organizations, little on-site travel relying on telephonic, email and correspondence to obtain information from complainants and businesses. If the object is to save $231,000, there are other ways to save that amount of money without radically changing the structure of the KHRC. Furthermore, nothing is gained by moving into the Attorney General's office because the KHRC already has subpoena enforcement powers and an attorney who handles the legal issues.

This move would result in nullification of both the Commission's independence and its effectiveness in the enforcement of civil rights in the State of Kansas.

I strongly urge you to oppose this ill-conceived proposal and urge others under your influence to oppose same. Thank you.

James E. Butler
Chairman Emeritus, Retired, KHRC

Read more...

The Wichita NAACP Youth Forensics team presents "Black History is American History"

On February 15th, The Wichita NAACP Youth Forensics team will be making a presentation on the campus of Wichita State University entitled "Black History is American History". The presentation consists of several original oratorical pieces written by the youth themselves dealing with history and the failure of the educational system to truly integrate the accomplishments and achievements of African Americans into the American narrative.

This event is free and open to the public...

What: Black History is American History
When: February 15th at 6:30PM
Where: Rhatigan Student Center, room 203

Read more...