FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES
DOWN NC LAW AGAINST
FELON VOTING
By Cash Michaels
Contributing writer
Saying that the North Carolina law prohibiting felons from voting “was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters,” a federal judge struck it down April 22.
U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Biggs, an African-American, issued her 25-page court order Monday, knocking down North Carolina General Statute 163-275.which made it a Class One felony for anyone who has not had their citizenship and voting rights restored by state law to vote.
The state law was enacted in 1877 “…with the intent to exclude Black people from voting and continues to have a disproportionate impact on Black people,” she wrote.
Judge Biggs also noted that Republican legislative lawmakers, the defendants who wanted to maintain the law, couldn’t disagree with its original intent.
“Defendants, in an extraordinary and telling concession, ‘do not contest that the historical background from the original enactments of 1877 and 1899 are indefensible. Defendants further do not contest that the law currently impacts African-Americans at a higher rate than it does other citizens."
She dismissed defendants’ claim that when the state legislature adopted a new constitution in 1971, it “…cleansed the Challenged Statute of its discriminatory taint.”
Biggs was also concerned about discrimination arising from inconsistent enforcement by prosecutors
“Record evidence demonstrating this inconsistency in District Attorneys’ interpretation and enforcement of the Challenged Statute — that some believed that the Challenged Statute included a requirement of intent while others did not — compels the conclusion that the Challenged Statute permits a ‘standardless sweep’ that allows prosecutors to ‘pursue their personal predilections’ under the Challenged Statute,” Judge Biggs wrote. “The Court now reaches that conclusion.”
“The Court holds that the Challenged Statute violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Biggs continued. “Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.”
Judge Biggs dismissed a recommendation from Magistrate Judge Joe Webster in January that she dismiss plaintiffs' complaints as moot after the NC General Assembly passed Senate Bill 747, which changed the felon law last year so that a voting felon can be charged with a crime if he/she knows that their voting rights have not been restored.
Plaintiffs in this case were the North Carolina A. Phillip Randolph Institute and Action NC. They filed suit in September 2020, but went to the federal court after the NC Supreme Court dismissed their suit against the Challenged Law in April 2023.
Judge Biggs’ order does not affect a separate lawsuit involving voter eligibility requirements for people with felony convictions.
Her order can be appealed.
-30-
he didn't regret mishandling Ronnie Long's wrongful conviction
case that kept him in prison
EXCLUSIVE
AG STEIN’S RESPONSE
TO RONNIE LONG
SPARKS OUTRAGE
By Cash Michaels
Contributing writer
State Attorney General Josh Stein, the Democratic candidate for governor, is dealing with the fallout from telling a national radio audience, “I don’t, I don’t,” when asked recently if he regretted his inexplicable handling of the wrongful conviction case of Ronnie Wallace Long.
Long, 68, was released from prison in August, 2020 and received a pardon of innocence, after serving over 44 years of an 80-year sentence for the 1976 rape and burglary of a prominent white woman in Concord, a crime that he was later proven not guilty of.
Long was convicted by an all-white jury.
Long eventually sued the Concord Police Dept. and the State Bureau of Investigation, and settled for a combined $25 million last January, the second largest wrongful conviction settlement on record.
With the aid of the Duke University Law School Wrongful Conviction Clinic, Long was able to convince the full Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 that key exculpatory evidence had been withheld from his 1976 trial, and Concord Police detectives framed him for the crime.
The federal circuit court ruled that Long’s due process rights had been violated.
But even though that fact had been evident years before the full appellate court ruling, AG Stein’s office ignored it, and opposed vacating Long’s wrongful conviction up until that point, thus prolonging the many years Long had to waste in prison.
Recently, during an appearance on a national radio show, AG Stein was asked if he regretted how his office handled Ronnie Long’s wrongful conviction case.
“I don’t, I don’t,” a tape of AG Stein’s reply reveals he said.
Long heard Stein’s response, and in a fiery op-ed in two major state newspapers, blasted Stein, saying in part, “…Stein doubled down on the actions of his office that unnecessarily caused me, an innocent man, to languish in prison. Worse, the actual perpetrator of the sexual assault I was convicted of was never brought to justice. Does Stein regret that his office aggressively defended my wrongful conviction while the true assailant remained free? Does he regret that the victim died believing a lie told to her by the corrupt police officers that his office defended?”
This reporter put those two questions from Ronnie Long to AG Stein’s press office, which ultimately sent back a response from Mr. Stein which read:
“Anytime someone like Ronnie Long is wrongfully convicted it is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to him and his family. Our criminal justice system is imperfect, and I’m grateful to the people who do the important work to overturn wrongful convictions. I am also grateful to have co-led the Task Force on Racial Equity in Criminal Justice (TREC), which works to improve our criminal justice system, including calling for a wrongful convictions unit.”
“We must keep working until every person is truly equal under the law.”
Stein’s statement was then sent to Prof. James E. Coleman, Jr., the John S. Bradley Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law and director of the Duke University Law School Wrongful Conviction Clinic, asking him for a response, and then to have Ronnie Long reply as well, through his attorney.
Through his attorney, Jamie T. Lau, Long said, “AG Stein has repeatedly refused to recognize that there are two victims in wrongful conviction cases like mine – the person harmed by a criminal and the innocent people needlessly imprisoned and tortured by the State because they are convicted of a crime they did not commit. Until Stein can acknowledge that wrongfully convicted men like me are victims, too, and recognizes that his role in serving all North Carolinians includes correcting injustices like mine, I find him unfit for the office he currently holds and the one he aspires to.
Long continued, “I also believe that, if Stein was sincere about equity in the criminal justice system, then his office would hold corrupt law enforcement officers and prosecutors accountable for their misconduct, which would be true equity. In my case, several officers committed perjury and prosecutors lied to keep me incarcerated, yet the State has done nothing to hold them accountable and Stein’s Office even defended their conduct. I guess framing a Black man is acceptable in North Carolina, which, obviously, is something that must change, and I will continue to use my voice until State officials involved in wrongful conviction cases are held accountable.”
Prof. Coleman, for his part, wrote that prosecutors like Stein are “indifferent” to the rights of the falsely accused, and that “Stein’s recent comments about the Ronnie Long case illustrate the problem of law enforcement officials whose primary goal is to avoid political harm while they wait their turn to seek the next office.”
“Saying he has no regrets about Long’s years of suffering and his mistreatment by corrupt law enforcement officials may be an effort to appear [or] sound tough,” Prof. Coleman added. “If so, it is false toughness.”
According to the American Bar Association, the primary duty of a prosecutor (which the state attorney general is as the chief legal officer of the state) is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. He also should exercise “…discretion not to pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances…and seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty.”
This is not the first time AG Stein has been called out for allegedly holding a deaf ear to the legal rights of innocent defendants.
In 2021, the progressive action group Emancipate NC, issued an “open letter” to its supporters about AG Stein shortly after he started his second term.
“An informal survey of North Carolina attorneys who do criminal appeals did not uncover any examples during Stein’s tenure of his criminal division supporting the dismissal of charges on account of police or prosecutorial misconduct, although it did identify a few cases where the office felt judges or defense attorneys had dropped the ball in a way that might warrant relief. Despite having a massive caseload that pulls from all corners of the state, Stein’s office does not appear to have encountered a case in which its interest in deterring police or prosecutorial abuse trumped its interest in defending a conviction.”
-30-
UNC SYSTEM BOARD
COMMITTEE CONFIRMS
MOVE TO ELIMINATE DEI
By Cash Michaels
Contributing writer
The UNC System Board of Governors - All Republican appointees who oversee policy at all 17 UNC system campuses across the state, including five public HBCU’s - is poised to approve a policy that would eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion employment positions and regulations throughout the system.
That would follow a vote April 17th where the board’s Governance Committee voted to approve the policy, and recommend it to the full 24-member board at its May meeting.
If the full board ratifies the committee recommendation, it would take effect immediately, with certification from campus chancellors required by September 1st.
The committee passed the policy recommendation unanimously, and without discussion, reportedly in five minutes. Students who wanted to be in attendance at the committee meeting were not allowed, which may have been in violation of state law applying to public meetings.
After the committee vote, a UNC - Chapel Hill spokesman issued a statement saying the school would “…review the policy change and work with the UNC System on implementation if it is adopted in May.”
“As the Board of Governors noted, equality of opportunity in education and employment is a long-standing commitment of the University of North Carolina as a core value in service to our vibrant and growing state, As part of that mission, UNC-Chapel Hill will continue to welcome people from all walks of life with a variety of experiences and perspectives who come here to learn, work and live.”
Students and faculty from across the UNC System, however, expressed concern that there was very little notice that eliminating DEI was on the committee's announced agenda. They said they felt robbed not being allowed to be present to voice their opinions.
Gov. Cooper, a supporter of DEI, also expressed concern after the vote.
“Our diversity should be used to highlight our state’s strengths, not our political divisions. Republican legislative and university leaders who attack diversity at our public universities are failing in their duty to protect students while threatening our ability to recruit top scientists, researchers and innovators who power our economy.”
There’s a reason why the governor included “Republican legislative leaders” in his criticism.
Several weeks ago, Jim Blaine, UNC- Chapel Hill Board of Trustees member and former chief of staff to Senate Republican leader Phil Berger, told a committee meeting, “It’s my belief that it is likely that the Board of Governors or the state legislature will follow Florida’s path as it relates to DEI. this year.”
Agreeing with Florida’s move to eliminate DEI from its college campuses, Blaine added, “I think what I’ve seen, in my opinion, is that DEI creates and exacerbates problems on this campus and doesn’t solve them. So I hope that they do move forward in eliminating DEI. I think it’s the right thing to do.”
According to the conservative Carolina Journal, during its short session, which started April 24th and is scheduled to last until July 31st, the NC General Assembly is expected to “…pass legislation …that would restrict teachings on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at public schools across the state.
The anti-DEI sentiments don’t stop there.
According to NC Newsline, two members of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees told the nonprofit news service that they will move to defund DEI from the school’s budget.
According to the story by NC Newsline reporter Joe Killian:
“I think the best way for the board to move forward is to advocate for the removal of all DEI funding from the UNC-Chapel Hill budget,” Trustee Dave Boliek, chair of the board’s Budget, Finance and Infrastructure committee, told NC Newsline. “I’m going to advocate that that be the case.”
Fellow trustee Marty Kotis, vice-chair of that committee, agreed.
“I believe DEI simply causes divisiveness,” Kotis said. “And the reason I think that is I’ve heard from a lot of people whose kids are applying to schools or who are applying for a job or applying to contract with various government entities and feeling like they’re being, frankly, discriminated against.”
Boliek, who is a candidate in the May 14 runoff in the Republican primary for state auditor, went further.
“I think this entire DEI effort has been one of, if not the most divisive things in higher education in modern history,” Boliek said. “It cuts against non-discrimination and I don’t see a return on the money being spent, in my experience. I just think those dollars can be used more effectively, for student wellness, for example, and for mental health challenges on campus, and repair and renovation of aging buildings.”
The move to eliminate DEI in colleges, private industry, and government programs was predicted after the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down race from college admissions in an affirmative action case involving UNC-Chapel Hill.
-30-
