The Wichita NAACP Blog

Branch VP Lavonta Williams elected Vice-Mayor of the City of Wichita!!!

2011-04-12T11:58:00.000-05:00

This morning, Lavonta Williams, who currently serves as the City Councilwoman for Wichita District 1, the Vice President of the Wichita Branch NAACP, the Secretary for the Kansas State Conference of the NAACP, and a host of other positions, was elected to her newest post. By a unanimous 7-0 vote, Lavonta Williams was elected to serve as the Vice Mayor for the City of Wichita! Her election was historic; already the first African American Woman elected to the City Council, she is now the first African American Woman to serve as Vice Mayor for the City. What's next for Vice Mayor Williams??? We'll keep you posted!

Misplaced Priorities: A new report from the NAACP

2011-04-10T15:56:00.000-05:00

On April 7th, the NAACP released a new report, Misplaced Priorities, that examines America's escalating levels of prison spending and its impact on state budgets and our nation’s children.

Misplaced Priorities tracks the steady shift of state funds away from education and toward the criminal justice system. Researchers have found that over-incarceration most often impacts vulnerable and minority populations, and that it destabilizes communities.

The report is part of the NAACP’s “Smart and Safe Campaign,” and offers a set of recommendations that will help policymakers in all 50 states downsize prison populations and shift the savings to education budgets.

Click here to download a PDF of the full report.

Join us April 4th for the "We Are One... Standing in solidarity with Labor" rally

2011-04-01T11:49:00.001-05:00

On April 4th, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis Tennessee, where he had gone to stand with sanitation workers who were standing up and demanding fair treatment and the right to bargain collectively for a voice at work and a better life.

Today, that same demand is electrifying people across America. It's the demand of all people - Black, White, Latino, and Asian American: The right to join together to fight for our common dreams.

On Monday, April 4th, Join the Wichita Branch and Kansas NAACP, the Wichita/Hutchison Labor Federation, and the Kansas Chapter of the National Organization for Women as we STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH LABOR.

What: The "WE ARE ONE" Rally
When: April 4th at 7:00pm
Where: Interfaith Ministries (829 N Market St)

The event is free and open to the public

Sign The Petition to Save our Schools

2011-03-31T21:49:00.003-05:00

NAACP Units throughout the State of Kansas will be collecting signatures on a petition calling upon the Governor and the Legislature to respect and honor their sworn oath to "support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas" by allocating 'suitable provisions for finance of the educational interests of the state' as required.

To add your name to the petition, CLICK HERE to be taken to the online form

Scan the code in the featured graphic to access the mobile form

OR if you would be willing to collect signatures, CLICK HERE to download a copy of the petition form.

Completed forms should be mailed to the Kansas State Conference on the NAACP at 829 N Market St, Wichita KS, 67214...

Why the School funding fight is "THE" fight!

2011-03-31T15:30:00.005-05:00

Kansas, like most States, is now dealing with a profound revenue shortfall with some estimating the gap as wide as $550 million dollars. To close that funding gap, the Kansas Legislature proposes that we 'shrink the size of Government' by cutting staff, services, and increasing privatization. Proponents of this approach argue that the worsening economic conditions necessitate this approach, and we simply can no longer afford to provide the level of services that we have become accustomed to. Proponents of this approach argue that as we begin to 'shrink the size of Government', and 'decrease the tax burden', businesses will rebound, new businesses will be attracted to our State, bringing new jobs and thereby expanding the tax base, and our State economy will rebound. And proponents of this approach argue that to solve the problem, we need to reduce funding to public schools...

What these proponents WON'T tell you is that we created this revenue shortfall by pushing corporate and business tax cuts thorough our legislature every successive year since 1997. What they won't tell you is the legislature has passed more than $668 million dollars in tax cuts since 2008! There's even a bill in our legislature RIGHT NOW (SB95) that would phase out ALL corporate income taxes over the next five years and reduce revenues even further. But they would ask that we ignore this totally reckless fiscal policy, treat these tax-cuts as sacrosanct, and allow them to make up the shortfall by de-funding our children's education.

We have fought for years in favor of reforms and programs shown to improve educational outcomes for children. We have fought for smaller class sizes - Just like the private schools and affluent districts maintain for their children. We have fought for highly qualified teachers - Just like the private schools and affluent districts maintain for their children. We have fought for up-to-date books and equipment - Just like the private schools and affluent districts maintain for their children. And now, under the guise of solving a revenue shortfall that we created through irresponsible and unaffordable business and corporate tax-cuts that have produced NO stimulative affect here in Kansas, we are now witness to our legislature acting to de-fund those reforms and do irreparable damage to our public school system.

- And if any of you feel that last statement was hyperbolic, I would ask you to remember that for all the talk about running the schools more like a business - Public schools are NOT BUSINESSES. The students within them are not commodities or products - their progress is not tied to an assembly line that can be stopped and restarted. If in response to our current budget challenges, we diminish the quality of education that we provide to our children for the next year, or two, or five - Those are years that those children will not get back! They will move forward in an increasingly competitive economy with limited skills and abilities courtesy of our supply-side fetishes and real-world myopia. -

In response to the proposed actions of the State, school districts around Kansas are making plans to increase class sizes, limit transportation, close down schools, limit access to extra-curricular and enrichment type activities to families with enough disposable income to pay for them, use older books and materials, etc. My friends on the other side of this issue say that we MUST do this so that we don't pass this crippling debt on to our children.

But I've said, and I'll say again: It is immoral for us to pay our debts for services that we've enjoyed with money that we've taken away from our children's education. It is wrong and we can not remain silent while our children's ability to compete in a global world economy is traded for short term corporate profits.

Advance Voting sites are now open for City and School Board Elections

2011-03-31T13:18:00.000-05:00

You can vote in city and school elections at 15 sites in Sedgwick County starting today. Among the choices for voters are Wichita mayor, four Wichita City Council seats and Wichita school board seats.

You can vote in advance by mail or at the sites below. Or you can vote Tuesday, April 5, at your designated polling place.

Voters can cast ballots at the election office from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. today and Friday, or at an advance voting center from noon to 7 p.m. today and Friday and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday.

Here are the locations:

Bel Aire City Building, 7651 E. Central Park
Center for Health and Wellness, 2707 E. 21st St.
Church of the Holy Spirit, 18218 W. U.S. 54, Goddard
First United Methodist Church, 560 N. Park, Valley Center
Grace Presbyterian Church, 5002 E. Douglas
Haysville Activity Center, 7106 S. Broadway, Haysville
Independent Living Resource Center, 3033 W. Second St.
Machinists Building, 3830 S. Meridian (1-4 p.m. Saturday)
Maranatha Worship Center, 888 S. Webb Road
Reformation Lutheran Church Parish Hall, 7601 E. 13th St.
Sedgwick County Zoo Cargill Learning Center, 5555 Zoo Blvd.
Sharon Baptist Church, 2221 S. Oliver
St. Andrew Lutheran Church, 2555 Hyacinth
Westlink Church of Christ, 10025 W. Central
Woodlawn United Methodist Church, 431 S. Woodlawn Blvd., Derby

Let your Legislators Hear Your Voice by calling 352 BE HEARD

2011-03-14T06:25:00.000-05:00

Have you ever wanted to sound off and let your legislators know exactly how you felt about an issue? Have you ever really wanted an opportunity to weigh in on an issue, but you were unable to make it to a specific hearing or forum?

352 BE HEARD is an initiative designed to afford you the opportunity to speak directly to your elected representatives and to have them hear your opinions in your own voice. Simply dial 352 BE HEARD (352-234-3274) from your phone and sound off on the issue of the day. Messages are then converted into MP3 format and complied on interactive documents which are then sent electronically to Legislators, elected officials and the press.

Selected messages may even be made available through the blog or other interactive media so that we can all hear the real voices of the General Public live and unfiltered.

As the Kansas Legislature prepares to cut more than 50 MILLION dollars from our schools, leading to furloughs and increased class sizes, as they debate rolling back human and civil rights protections that we all take for granted, as they consider a push to eliminate get-out the vote type registration drives and door-to-door canvassing through a vacuous Voter ID Bill, and as they prepare to vote on yet ANOTHER Tax Cut bill - this time to phase out ALL Corporate Income taxes over the next 5 years Despite the fact we are already facing a $550 million dollar Revenue shortfall, YOUR VOICE IS NEEDED NOW MORE THAN EVER.

Please call 352 BE HEARD - and let YOUR voice Be Heard!

352 BE HEARD (352-234-3274) is a service jointly provided by the Wichita Branch and Kansas State Conference of the NAACP.

Let's tell the Truth about Kansas' budget shortfall

2011-03-13T14:02:00.005-05:00

Gov. Sam Brownback announced his plan to cut $50 million from public schools. His proposed cut to base state aid to education will reduce annual school spending per pupil by $22, from $4,012 to $3,990. In fact the Governor's proposed Education cuts total nearly 90% of the $56.5 million in overall reductions that have been announced thus far.

The legislators and even the press have chimed in stating that while these are difficult cuts, they are in fact necessary due to our current fiscal condition.

The only problem with this is that we all seem to act as though our current fiscal condition was magically imposed on us and that we are merely reacting to circumstance... When the Truth is, many of the very same Legislators who are now looking to take an ax to public schools, created or at least exacerbated our fiscal tsunami by going to Topeka and voting to reduce revenues year after year through irresponsible tax cuts.

Our Legislature has passed some form of tax cut in EVERY successive session since 1997.

In fact, if you just look at the tax cuts passed since 2005, to include the Corporate rate cut in the Omnibus Tax bill of 2008, the phase out of the Franchise tax, the phasing out of Estate taxes, the various sales tax exemptions, and others included in the 18 tax cutting bills we've passed during this period, the cumulative reduction in State revenues that can be DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED to the passage of these bills is $668,086,000.00 as of 2011.

668 Million dollars in tax cuts since 2005 and now we're faced with a 550 million dollar revenue shortfall...

And each time business taxes are cut we are told that this is good for us, because by cutting business taxes, we'll entice more businesses to come to Kansas and our tax base will actually grow as jobs and revenue floods the State. We're told that by cutting business and corporate taxes, Corporations and business leaders will reinvest their windfall profits into their companies and expand, creating more and more jobs... But the economic Shangri-La we've all been promised never actually materializes. Our Corporate and Business leaders increase their handsome portfolio's while the rest of us trod along with frozen pay scales and worsening benefits, while trying not to get sick.

We've invested 668 million dollars in State Revenues since 2005. Where are the jobs that money was supposed to generate?

But of course, the answer to this question is - we simply need to cut more... Like SB95, now in the Committee on Assements and Taxation, that calls for a 5 year phase out of ALL income taxes for Corporations, or HB2284 which would make it a misdemeanor for any lobbyist paid with public funds to even ask for a tax increase.

So how do we dig ourselves out of this hole? - Well the legislature's answer seems to be that Step 1. we keep digging, and Step 2. we attempt to plug the hole on the fly by undermining the public schools.

Now I'm sure my friends on the other side of this argument will sharply disagree with my assessment. I'm sure they would all argue that these cuts are absolutely necessary so as to protect our children from inheriting a crippling debt.

But it is intellectually inconsistent to claim you are protecting the children's future by paying your bills with money you've taken from their schools. It is also morally wrong.

Bills like HCR5010 which would amend the State's constitution, eliminating the requirement for providing the necessary funding to offer a "suitable" education to all children, along with HB2193 to redefine At-Risk and redistribute Title I funds aways from the youth who need it most, reductions to Supplemental State Aid, and reductions of weighting factors are shortsighted and will ultimately prove destructive. And they are even less palatable when we consider that the money saved will be used to fill the shortfall caused by an irresponsible tax cut policy which our legislature has yet to abandon.

We've got to do more than just be angry...

We've got to put down our petty divisions and disagreements, stand together, and go up there and say HELL NO.

Now who's with me?

Selected Tax Cuts since 2000

Sales tax exemption for grain storage extended – SB 59 (2000);
“Telephonestead” income tax credits – SB 226 (2000);
Use of farm net operating loss carrybacks expanded – SB 226 (2000);
“Integrated plant” sales tax exemption codified, refunds provided – HB 2011 (2000);
Tax incentives for independent power producers – HB 2266 (2001);
Tax exemption for eligible electric generation facilities – HB 2245 (2001);
Income tax credit for abandoned-well plugging made permanent – SB 45 (2001);
Property tax exemption expansion for farm storage and drying equipment – SB 138 (2001);
Expansion of Job Investment Credit Act – SB 146 (2001);
Income tax credit for business research and development – HB 2055 (2001);
Income tax credit for historic preservation – HB 2128 (2001);
Certified capital formation company tax credits – HB 2505 (2002);
Business machinery and equipment tax credits expanded – SB 39 (2002);
Tax credits made available to railroads for first time – SB 39 (2002);
Special apportionment formula for investment funds service corporations – SB 39 (2002);
Diversion of tire manufacturer employee withholding tax – SB 39 (2002);
Low cost ($250 to $400) exemption expansion for business machinery – SB 39 (2002);
Agricultural land capitalization rate change lowers property tax value – SB 39 (2002);
Increase in sales tax from 4.9 to 5.3 percent – SB 39 (2002);
Increase in cigarette tax from 24 to 79 cents per pack – SB 39 (2002);
Reimposition of succession/inheritance tax on certain heirs – SB 39 (2002);
Historic preservation credits expanded – SB 39 (2002);
Various taxpayer fairness provisions – SB 39 (2002);
IMPACT program expanded yet again – SB 565 (2002);
Tax credit for port authority debt retirement – HB 2586 (2002);
Motor fuel tax increase 2 cents per gallon – HB 3011 (2002);
Sales tax rate of 5.3 made permanent – SB 265 (2003);
Statewide STAR bond (sales tax diversion) authority expansion – Sub HB 2208 (2003);
Employee withholding tax diversion (bonds) for major manufacturers – SB 281 (2003);
Tax amnesty – HB 2005 (2003);
Streamlined sales tax compliance provisions – HB 2005 (2003);
Succession tax repealed retroactive to enactment – HB 2005 (2003);
Estate tax filing exemption threshold to mirror federal in 2007 – HB 2005 (2003);
Retailers given temporary choice re sourcing (streamlined) – Sub SB 147 (2004);
Increase in franchise tax – Sub SB 147 (2004);
Imposition of presumptive sales tax on certain private car sales – Sub SB 147 (2004);
Diversion of revenues authorized for biosciences industry – HB 2647 (2004);
Further expansion of IMPACT program – HB 2647 (2004);
Rural business development tax credit – HB 2647 (2004);
Angel investor tax credit – HB 2647 (2004);
Sales tax exemption for computer software customization services – Sub SB 147 (2004);
Decelerated sales tax remittance schedule for certain retailers – Sub SB 147 (2004);
Repeal of presumptive sales tax on private care sales – SB 23 (2005);
Tax credits for employment of math/science teachers – SB 138 (2005);
Qualified manufacturer act authorizes diversion/return of withholding tax – HB 2265 (2005);
Further expansion of IMPACT program – HB 2265 (2005);
Six-year extension of sales tax exemption associated with enterprise zones – HB 2164 (2005);
Expansion of rural business and community entrepreneurship tax credits – SB 324 (2006);
Reaffirming phase-out of estate tax – SB 365 (2006);
Tax credit for employment of ex-military personnel – SB 432 (2006);
Property tax exemption for business machinery and equipment – HB 2583 (2006);
Extend rural business development tax credit sunset by five years– HB 2004 (2007);
Tax credit for certain film production activities – HB 2004 (2007);
Expansion of angel investor tax credit act – HB 2004 (2007);
Extend sunset on STAR bond authority by five years – HB 2005 (2007);
Phase out and ultimate repeal of corporation franchise tax – HB 2264 and SB 215 (2007)
Income tax exemption for certain social security benefits – HB 2031 (2007);
Single-factor apportionment formula for certain manufacturers – SB 240 (2007) ;
Homestead program expansion – Sub HB 2476 (2007);
Earned income tax credit expansion – HB 2031 (2007);
Property tax exemption for nuclear generation facilities – HB 2038 (2007)
Income tax incentives for biofuels – HB 2038 (2007)
Income tax incentives for renewable electric cogeneration – HB 2038 (2007)
Property and income tax incentives for waste heat utilization systems – HB 2038 (2007)
Expansion of certain incentives to all biomass-to-energy plants – HB 2038 (2007)
Sales tax exemption for certain storm-damaged business purchases – HB 2240 (2007)
Corporate rate cut and various apportionment provisions – S Sub HB 2434 (2008)
Disaster relief income tax credits for business investments – S Sub HB 2434 (2008)
Safe Senior Property Tax Credits – S Sub HB 2434 (2008)
Disaster-related sales tax exemptions – S Sub HB 2434 (2008)

Coalition of Kansas Civic Organizations to March for Civil Rights Protections on 3/19

2011-03-13T11:37:00.000-05:00

On Saturday, March 19th, at 12:00pm, the Kansas NAACP, the Topeka Center for Peace and Social Justice, Kansas Equality Coalition, the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, Kansas National Organization for Women, and the Kansas League of Women Voters will stand together in an historic alliance to oppose the systematic dismantling of civil and equal rights protections in Kansas.

These organizations, their members, allies, and supporters, will meet at Monroe Elementary School in Topeka (the Brown Vs Board Historic site), and we will march to the Capitol Building. Put on your walking shoes and meet us at the Capitol!!!

Contacts:
Reverend Ben Scott, President, Topeka NAACP
785-266-5688 / naacptopeka1@att.net

Jim McCullough, Director, Topeka Center for Peace and Social Justice
785-232-4388 / topekacpj@aol.com

Thomas Witt, Chair, Kansas Equality Coalition
316-683-1706 / chair@kansasequalitycoalition.org

Holly Weatherford, Program Director, ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri
816-756-3113 x 234 / hweatherford@aclukswmo.org

Kari Ann Rinker, State Coordinate, Kansas NOW
620-245-4904 / coordinator@ksnow.org

Ernestine Krehbiel, President, Kansas League of Women Voters
316-652-9229 / ekrehbiel@cox.net

The Wichita NAACP Partners with Sedgwick County to host Tonya Lewis Lee in Wichita to fight Infant Mortality

2011-03-01T07:17:00.001-06:00

The Wichita Branch NAACP to partner with the Sedgwick County Health Department's Healthy Babies Program to host award-winning TV Producer, Tonya Lewis Lee, as she travels through Wichita on a three city tour throughout the State of Kansas. Ms. Lee’s visit is part of a statewide education campaign coordinated by the Kansas Blue Ribbon Panel on Infant Mortality in April, National Minority Health Awareness Month.

Researchers and health experts have sought unsuccessfully for years to determine why African American women suffer significantly higher infant mortality rates than their white counterparts. As the gap between black and white infant deaths continues to expand, it is time to address this paradox with new approaches. Over the past decade, the infant mortality rate for Kansas has remained relatively unchanged while the U.S. rate continued to decline. In 2008, Kansas’ rate of 7.25 infant deaths per 1,000 live births was higher than the national rate of 6.59 per 1,000 live births. (The national rate is based on preliminary death data published by the National Center for Vital Statistics).

According to the most recent annual summary published by the National Center for Vital Statistics (2007 data), Kansas ranked first (worst) among other states for black infant mortality. Reports from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Bureaus of Epidemiology and Public Health Informatics indicate the following: From 2000 – 2009, a 33 percent increase in the infant mortality rate was observed for non-Hispanic black infants. The non-Hispanic black infant mortality rate in 2009 was 2.6 times higher than the rate for non-Hispanic white infants. In 2009, Non-Hispanic black babies represent 6.8 percent of births and 15.2 percent of deaths.

While the root causes of these disparities in infant mortality rates is not thoroughly understood, the operating theory has been that the high incidence of infant deaths among African Americans is attributed to higher teen pregnancy rates, single motherhood, lower education levels, poverty, stress, and–most recently suggested–genetic causes.

Clearly, however, the need for new approaches to understanding this phenomenon is underscored by research disclosing that high levels of infant mortality persist, even when most of these factors are controlled. Also consider that African Americans have higher infant mortality rates in every age category. Furthermore, the genetic theory is weakened by research that shows better birth outcomes among foreign–born black women. It seems that regardless of their socioeconomic status, native–born African American women fare worse in birth outcomes compared to white women at every income and education level.

Wichita, KS – Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Host Organization: Sedgwick County Health Department, Healthy Babies Program
Contact: Susan Wilson, Program Director – sewilson@sedgwick.gov

Topeka, KS – Thursday, April 21, 2011
Host Organization: The Kansas African American Affairs Commission
Contact: Mildred Edwards, Executive Director – mildred.edwards@ks.gov

Kansas City, KS – Friday, April 22, 2011
Host Organization: Mother & Child Health Coalition
Contact: Susan McLoughlin, Executive Director – smcloughlin@mchc.net

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE STATE OF KANSAS THREE-CITY TOUR, PLEASE CONTACT:

Aiko Allen, MS, Director
Center for Health Disparities
KDHE Division of Health
Email: AiAllen@kdheks.gov
Phone: 785-296-0781

Union Protests and Rallies make their way into Kansas

2011-02-27T14:35:00.000-06:00

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.

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

2011-02-21T20:44:00.001-06:00

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

State President KMyles full testimony on HB2197 - Public Defenders

2011-02-21T17:26:00.002-06:00

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

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

2011-02-18T18:44:00.000-06:00

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.

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

2011-02-10T12:07:00.001-06:00

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

NAACP LDF successfully defends race-conscious admission in higher education

2011-02-07T20:11:00.002-06:00

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.

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

2011-02-06T11:31:00.000-06:00

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

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

2011-02-05T22:05:00.000-06:00

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

Kansas Secretary of State Kobach responds to arguments against Voter ID Bill; calls them "ridiculous"

2011-01-22T10:41:00.002-06:00

Last Wednesday, members of the Kansas Voter Coalition traveled to Topeka to speak out against the proposed Voter ID bill. Speakers included Kari Ann Rinker from the Kansas Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Ernestine Kreihbel - President of the Kansas League of Women Voters, Holly Weatherford from the Kansas ACLU, and Kevin Myles from the Kansas State NAACP.

During the press conference, we (NAACP) raised the issue of Voter Caging and how that might be facilitated by this bill. Caging is an illegal voter suppression tactic that involves the challenging of voter qualifications on the basis of address and database discrepancies.

This is hardly a stretch, considering in December of 2007, then Chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, Kris Kobach sent out an email to his supporters that was forwarded to some members of the press and reported in more than a dozen online publications. In this email, it was reported that then Party Chairman Kobach bragged that, "Our voter identification system is up and running giving us the capability to effectively mobilize voters and turn them out to vote on Election Day. To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!"

Secretary Kobach responded to reports of the Press Conference by saying that opponents should 'read the bill' and that our allegations were ridiculous.

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. In brief, I will highlight a few of the major issues with this proposal, then contrast the proposal against some simple low cost reforms that would accomplish the same goal.

The Current System is secure: According to Secretary Kobach, there have been 80 reports of voter fraud in Kansas over the last 10 years. But of those 80 reports, only 3 have been successfully prosecuted. That means that more than 96% of the cases reported in Kansas were investigated and deemed to be unfounded. In fact, there has been only 1 successful prosecution in the last 6 years and that person wasn't even an immigrant. In fact, the previous two Secretaries of State, one Democrat and one Republican, have each stated publicly that voter fraud is not a real issue in Kansas.
Photo ID laws are ineffective: Photo ID laws are designed to protect against one very specific type of voter fraud, and that's Voter Impersonation. You have people produce a photo ID so that the officials can visually verify that the person is who they say they are and is not an identity thief. Kansas has NEVER prosecuted a voter impersonation case. The odds against an illegal immigrant coming into the country, then assuming some else's identity, then going to polls to vote under their name (after having mastered their signature), and risking arrest and prosecution if the person they're impersonating has already voted, are astronomical. The most common form of voter fraud is when a person votes multiple times. BUT, If a person were to try and vote multiple times, there is NOTHING in this current proposal that would change or strengthen any part of our system that would detect or preclude that type of fraud. In fact, we would still be reliant on the safeguards currently in place to deal with that scenario. Safeguards that have already proven secure - as evidenced by that fact that there is no plan to change them. All this bill would do is increase the penalties.
The Cost: The Secretary has not publicly come out and discussed the costs of his proposal. But the State of Missouri has a law on it's books that is similar to what we are facing and I have obtained a copy of their fiscal note. Implementation cost the State of Missouri nearly 6 million dollars in the first year with costs near 4 million for each of the next two years! CLICK HERE to download a copy so you can see it for yourself. At a time when we have a $550,000,000 budget deficit, the Secretary would have us spend upwards of ten million dollars to strengthen a system that has already proved secure and to protect it against a nearly impossible hypothetical situation.
Voter Suppression/Reduction in Voter Turnout: This one should concern people the most. For while we should 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 considered one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. No law, no tariff, and no ordinance should ever be imposed that would deprive any American citizen of the franchise. But in all of the states where they have Voter ID bills on the books, they each experience reductions in Voter turn-out. Why? Consider the provisions in this proposed bill. Door to door canvasing and traditional get-out-the-vote activities, practices which date back more than a hundred years, would be virtually eliminated. The Secretary's proposed bill requires that an Election Officer certify a persons immigration status at the time of registration. Now that's not particularly onerous, but the trick is the bill specifies that their status must be confirmed by submission of the actual drivers license (in person) or by a photo-copy of their license. Now that same information could be obtained if that person submitted the driver license number - but that would not be allowed under the Secretary's proposal. The language in Section 7, KSA 2010, Supp. 25-2309 subparagraphs L through Q (new additions to the statute) would disallow the submission of a driver's license number and would require a photo copy of the card. Which would mean that if a group or organization wanted to set up a table to register people to vote at a fair or a community forum, the prospective voters would have to have brought a photo copy of their license with them or they couldn't be registered! Also consider that the bill states that ALL voters will now show their drivers license at the polling place, and that if their is a discrepancy between their driver's license and the information contained in the Voter Registration records (such as an address change), you would only be able to vote on a provisional ballot unless you had a copy of your utility bill there with you. In the States with these laws on the books, they find that many people, after standing in line to vote, then finding out that they can't, simply can't or don't go home and come back to stand in line again with more paperwork and documentation. Their votes are just lost. BTW - the act of disqualifying voters based technical discrepancies such as address changes is known as caging, which is technically illegal, but would be permissible under this proposal.

Now if the goal is truly to ensure that only legally registered voters are allowed to participate in our elections, we could easily accomplish that goal without spending $10,000,000.00, without disenfranchising anyone, and without consenting to the power-grab requested by the Secretary of State who has requested new prosecution powers in his nearly 40 page bill. If this is really about securing our elections, consider these easy alternatives:

The State could require the inclusion of a full drivers license number on all registration applications, and require voters to produce their voter registration cards, which are produced and distributed by the SOS after verifying immigration status, at the polls.(no additional costs, no caging, and no reduction in registrations or turn-out)
The State could enforce the National Voter Registration Act and register people when the receive their Driver Licenses, then there would be no discrepancies between databases - no caging, and no loss of turn out.

What truly is ridiculous is that we are being asked to spend millions of tax-payer dollars, at a time when we are operating with a $550,000,000 budget shortfall, to implement a voter impersonation prevention program, despite the fact that we've never actually prosecuted anybody for voter impersonation. And that we are being asked to simultaneously consolidate brand new powers into the Secretary of State's Office despite the fact that we have no shortage of Attorneys in Topeka and that there is no reason why the Attorney General's office could not continue to perform its statutory role and function without the assistance of Mr. Kobach. And it is also ridiculous that the bill would hamper voter canvassing and get out the vote activities, and result in some legally registered voters being offered provisional ballots or being turned away at the polls, yet the Secretary and his supporters are incredulous when presented with the obvious implications of the language that they are publicly supporting. And it is truly ridiculous that we could easily secure our elections without the cost or risk of disenfranchising anyone yet the Secretary and his supporters continue the ruse, claiming that this bloated 40 page, multi-million dollar monstrosity is in our best interest.

Video: KMyles and Sec of State Blowbach Voter ID debate Pt.2

2011-01-22T07:26:00.001-06:00

We need more than a King Day...

2011-01-17T16:52:00.000-06:00

Today is the day set aside to mark and to celebrate the birth of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. It is a day rife with significance for even a cursory examination of Dr. King's life and legacy displays a touchstone of faith in action, courageous protest, and scholarship...

But we must be careful to not allow King as 'symbol' to outweigh or overshadow King's 'substance'. For Dr. King was, at his best, a soldier... An exemplary and incredibly gifted soldier. Not the first, nor the last, but one who took his place among the thousands who have stood up against ignorance, inequity, and intolerance, and waged peace with his very life.

His life was an action. His legacy was his work. His words were and remain powerful, not because they were simply well chosen, but rather because they described the act of creating freedom - the act that he dedicated his life to...

So it is important that as we honor King, that we not honor his words while neglecting his work. For if I were a farmer, who had dedicated my life to tilling the soil, planting, and harvesting, so that my family and community could eat. If I were to pass away, I would hope that I not be honored by people telling tales about the great crops I had once grown, or telling stories about how wonderfully they once ate, or singing hymns about what a wonderful farmer I once was... I hope that I would be honored by those who loved me and who believed in the worth and significance of my actions, picking up my hoe and rake, and continuing the work that I started.

And that is why today I say we need more than a King 'Day', we need a King 'Commitment'. A commitment that transcends the fleeting recognition that the "struggle continues". A commitment that is larger than the annual recitations of the I have a Dream speech. A commitment that compels us, in whatever way our time and circumstances allows, to do something inconvenient that will help somebody. To stand up and right just one wrong. To speak up one time, when it would be so much easier to simply remain silent. To offer encouragement to one youth who is going down the wrong path. Or simply to help somebody keep the faith, when the weight of the world starts weighing them down.

Just one thing - then another...

And if we each do that, we will all be one giant step closer to rebuilding the 'beloved community' that Dr. King gave his life for...

Video: XtraNormal video of KMyles and Sec of State Blowbach on the Kansas Voter ID Bill

2011-01-11T20:54:00.001-06:00

What does the term "Highly Qualified" mean to you?

2011-01-05T22:44:00.000-06:00

The federal definition of a "Highly Qualified" teacher has been one who is: fully certified and/or licensed by the state; holds at least a bachelor's degree from a four-year institution; and demonstrates competence in each core academic subject area in which the teacher teaches.

That is important to note because the NCLB Act required that all teachers of core academic subjects working in Title I schools or programs hired after the first day of the 2002-03 school year be "Highly Qualified" by the end of the 2005/2006 school year.

The goal was to move us away from the all too common phenomena where the children with the greatest academic needs were taught by those with the least experience and conversely those with the greatest academic advantages were taught by the most senior and most seasoned teachers. It was supposed to end the era of concentrating new and inexperienced teachers in high minority and low SES schools.

But an obscure bit of language was inserted into last weeks Omnibus Spending bill... You know the one that extended unemployment and tax cuts that everyone heralded as some great compromise...

This language, not germane to the spending bill itself and seriously under-reported... This language changes the definition of a Highly Qualified Teacher to now include INTERNS!!!

excerpted from HR3082

“Sec. 163. (a) A ‘highly qualified teacher’ includes a teacher who meets the requirements in 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2)(ii), as published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2002.

“(b) This provision is effective on the date of enactment of this provision through the end of the 2012–2013 academic year.

Forgive me for going out into the weeds, but you need to understand what just happened...

CFR 200.56 defines the term "Highly Qualified Teacher" as used in Federal Legislation. It reads:

200.56 - Definition of “highly qualified teacher.”
To be a highly qualified teacher, a teacher covered under 200.55 must meet the requirements in paragraph (a) and either paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.

(a) In general. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a teacher covered under 200.55 must (i) Have obtained full State certification as a teacher, which may include certification obtained through alternative routes to certification; or (ii)(A) Have passed the State teacher licensing examination; and (B) Hold a license to teach in the State.

(2) A teacher meets the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the teacher (i) Has fulfilled the State's certification and licensure requirements applicable to the years of experience the teacher possesses; or (ii) Is participating in an alternative route to certification program under which (A) The teacher (1) Receives high-quality professional development that is sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused in order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction, before and while teaching; (2) Participates in a program of intensive supervision that consists of structured guidance and regular ongoing support for teachers or a teacher mentoring program; (3) Assumes functions as a teacher only for a specified period of time not to exceed three years; and (4) Demonstrates satisfactory progress toward full certification as prescribed by the State; and (B) The State ensures, through its certification and licensure process, that the provisions in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section are met.

(3) A teacher teaching in a public charter school in a State must meet the certification and licensure requirements, if any, contained in the State's charter school law.

(4) If a teacher has had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis, the teacher is not highly qualified.

(b) Teachers new to the profession. A teacher covered under 200.55 who is new to the profession also must (1) Hold at least a bachelor's degree; and (2) At the public elementary school level, demonstrate, by passing a rigorous State test (which may consist of passing a State certification or licensing test), subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading/language arts, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum; or (3) At the public middle and high school levels, demonstrate a high level of competency by (i) Passing a rigorous State test in each academic subject in which the teacher teaches (which may consist of passing a State certification or licensing test in each of these subjects); or (ii) Successfully completing in each academic subject in which the teacher teaches (A) An undergraduate major; (B) A graduate degree; (C) Coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major; or (D) Advanced certification or credentialing.

(c) Teachers not new to the profession. A teacher covered under 200.55 who is not new to the profession also must (1) Hold at least a bachelor's degree; and (2)(i) Meet the applicable requirements in paragraph (b)(2) or (3) of this section; or (ii) Based on a high, objective, uniform State standard of evaluation in accordance with section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, demonstrate competency in each academic subject in which the teacher teaches.

For simplicity, the full 2002 Federal definition is presented in red. The Highlighted area is the small subparagraph that NOW constitutes a "Highly Qualified Teacher". So when you read through the text, take note of the fact that the RED text contains the requirements that can now be waived when determining who is "Highly Qualified".

WHAT THIS MEANS is that the same inexperienced and under-qualified teachers that have been concentrated in high minority and low SES schools around the country, CAN NOW STAY in those schools, because rather than actually placing highly qualified teachers in there to help those children most in need, the Government has simply changed the definition of "Highly Qualified" to now include folks who are still IN TRAINING.

This is SHAMEFUL and APPALLING, and every activist and organization that is serious about Education should say so.

The Kansas Voter Coalition to hold Press Conference at the State Capitol on Voter ID

2011-01-02T01:15:00.000-06:00

Scan the graphic with your smartphone to add the event to your calendar

The Voter Coalition will hold a Press Conference to voice our opposition and provide information concerning the proposed Voter ID bill.

The Kansas Voter Coalition is made up of the Kansas State NAACP, the Kansas State League of Women Voters, the Kansas Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the Kansas Equality Coalition, the Kansas chapter of the ACLU, the Wichita chapter of Church Women United, the Sedgwick County Council of Elders, the Peace and Social Justice Center, and YOU...

The Kansas Voter Coalition has come together in opposition to the proposed Voter ID Legislation being offered by Secretary of State Kobach. We oppose this legislation on several grounds.

First, of the nearly 10,000,000 votes cast in the last six years throughout the State of Kansas, there have been only six reported cases of Voter Fraud and only 1 was successfully prosecuted. You statistically have a better chance of being stricken twice by lightning than of encountering an genuine act of Voter Fraud in Kansas. What does that mean? It means our system IS WORKING and there is NO concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.

Second, The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled, and Secretary Kobach has suggested, that the only way a Voter ID bill can pass muster, is if the State is willing to provide the ID's free of charge to those who can not afford one. This would require the creation of a new bureaucracy to manage the distribution of Voter ID cards to combat a problem that can not empirically be shown to even exist. As a State we have a $450,000,000 shortfall, so why in the world would we create a new bureaucracy with new salaries and FTE's to monitor and distribute ID cards that the State will foot the bill for, in perpetuity?

Third, there is a hidden government mandate. Each year, hundreds of Seniors reach a point in their lives where they may elect to stop driving. This bill states that even if a Senior decides to stop driving and no longer needs to maintain a current ID, they will be mandated to purchase one if they intend to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The only exception would be if they could prove to the new bureaucracy that it would pose a financial hardship; in which case the State would foot the bill.

and lastly but perhaps most profoundly, this bill; a solution to problem whose existence can NOT be demonstrated empirically, would have the likely impact of reducing voter turnout among legal registered voters. In fact recent studies by Brown University and the Brennan center have clearly provided the type of empirical data that this bills proponents lack. In States that have Voter ID Bills on the books, there is a demonstrable reduction in Voter turnout, and that reduction is most profound in the African American community and among Seniors.

Join us as we call on our elected officials to just say NO. We just don't need Secretary Kobach using tax dollars to radically experiment with our electoral system, in an effort to solve a problem that can not be shown to exist.

If you would like to become a part of this effort, you can begin by joining with us on January 19th at the State Capitol Building!

What: The Kansas Voter Coalition hosts a Press Conference to discuss our opposition to the proposed Voter ID Bill
When: January 19th 11:30am - 1:00pm
Where: Room 144 South in the State Capitol Building
Who: This event is open to the public.

The Wichita Branch 2011/2012 Strategic Planning Session set for January 22nd

2011-01-01T23:50:00.000-06:00

Scan the graphic with your smartphone to add the event to your calendar

On January 22nd (11:00am - 2:00pm) the Wichita Branch NAACP will hold its annual Strategic Planning session. During this session, we will set priorities and goals for all Branch Committees. The annual Strategic Planning session is open to all active members of the Wichita Branch. The 2011/2012 Strategic Plan will be posted here on the blog once complete.