Voter ID laws in the USA

What’s the big deal about voter ID laws?

Local elections are taking place in the fall of 2015 in the state of North Carolina.  North Carolina was until 2010 a Democratic State and since 2012 the State House, Senate, and Governorship are in Republican hands, North Carolina is reversing many policies set  from the past decades.

One of these is the controversial voter photo ID law. In 2013, under the freshly elected majority Republican House and Senate, the state of North Carolina passed a law requiring voters to show a valid government issued photo ID. This law is effective starting January 1, 2016, just in time for the Presidential elections of the USA.

While for most citizens of Western countries, presenting a photo ID when voting at an election is taken for granted, in the USA, until 2000, there were no laws requiring the presentation of a photo ID; in fact there is no such thing as a national photo identification.  Since a few years, however, with laws on voter photo IDs popping up in some - mostly Southern - states, this issue has turned into a highly controversial political issue.

As Republican North Carolina House Representative Chuck McGrady explains, he supports the voter ID laws in North Carolina because, “Voter ID legislation has consistently had broad support in North Carolina; polls suggest that about 70% or more of our citizens support Voter ID.” However, he “doesn’t believe there is a lot of voter fraud, but folks generally feel that they want to create barriers to any voter fraud. “

Since the shaky election results of the Presidential elections in 2000, with Florida showcasing potential for voter fraud, although voting laws are a State issue, President Bush voted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which required all first-time voters in federal elections to show ID upon registration or arrival at polling places. Thereafter, and more effectively, starting with Arizona in 2004, individual states started passing laws requiring voters to bring photo IDs. Since then, 34 States have some sort of voter ID law, which are more or less strict depending on what type of ID is considered acceptable, as well as what options are available to guarantee proof of identification without presenting photo ID on site.

These developments seem to make sense. However, voter ID laws are not truly motivated by voter fraud…

There is another agenda behind the voter ID laws, which makes them highly controversial.  Voter ID laws enacted primarily in Republican states aim at creating obstacles for voters who traditionally vote Democratic and do not have easy access to government-issued IDs.

California – a currently Democratic voting state- is the most prominent state without any voter ID laws, and none in the pipeline. The only state where a voter ID was actually voted down was the state of Minnesota in 2012, when it was largely Democratic. Republican states voting on and enacting voter ID laws claim they aim at eliminating voter fraud. However, even those law-makers in favor, such as NC State House Representative McGrady, admit it barely exists.  International organizations brought in to help to understand the problem, hone in on the political divide rather than the voter fraud issue.

A Needs Assessment Mission Report of the OSCE on the United States of America General Elections of 2014 explains that the states that have moved toward introducing more stringent voter identification requirements passed by the states typically follow party lines – with Republican States implementing voter photo ID laws. The report goes on to explain that the states that have voter ID laws are predominantly Republican and they predominantly affect a demographic that is under-privileged or a minority and more likely to vote Democrat. The OSCE report also mentions that there have been reports of legislators carrying out these laws with intent of weakening the Democratic vote.

Years before the OSCE report, in 2006, the Brennan Center for Justice did a survey of Americans’ possession of documentary proof of citizenship and photo identification. It determined that 7% of Americans – 13 million citizens – do not have ready access to citizenship documents.  These 13 million affected are ethnic minorities, women, the elderly and the poor.

The Brennan Center for Justice further studied the reasons for the difficulty in obtaining government-issued photo IDs. The problems evolve primarily around not having access to a vehicle or to a government ID issuing office. Lack of money, total lack of transportation options, limited hours of government ID issuing offices are simple yet real problems for millions of Americans – typically for minorities, the poor or the elderly. Some rural elderly do not even possess birth certificates, which makes obtaining government issued photo ID practically impossible.

Because of the evident injustice of mandating voter ID laws, constituents are now filing lawsuits against the voter ID law enacted not only in North Carolina, but other States across the country such as Texas. The clear argument against voter ID laws, as also determined by the OSCE, is that it disenfranchises millions of voters – typically Democratic leaning voters found in minorities.

This is of course not the first time American citizens have fought to equalize voting rights. Back in 1965, The Voting Rights Act was enacted to ensure that African Americans have equal voting rights. Back then, despite the 15^th amendment signed into law at the end of slavery, African Americans’ faced hurdles when voting: Southern States for example set up poll taxes, literacy tests or other forms of bureaucratic obstacles.  The 24^th amendment, under the Voting Rights Act,  finally forbid poll taxes.

Also important is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 enacted that any state changing voter laws must first obtain legal preclearance from the Department of Justice. However, the Shelby County vs Holder law suit filed in 2013 after many states were not obtaining preclearance for their new voter ID laws, now allows states to put voter ID laws into effect without preclearance.  This case is just another thorn in the eye for those who have been fighting for fair voting rights for minorities and the vulnerable. Not only are some voters disenfranchised, but voting acts aimed at preventing exactly this injustice are now being disassembled.

The Republicans are strategically working on maintaining power by enacting not only these voter ID laws, but now by challenging decade old basic voting right laws. In addition, the Republican states are also manipulating elections results to their benefit by redistricting election districts to unfair advantages for Republicans and unfair disadvantages for minorities; shortening early voting days, which 70% of the African American voters used in North Carolina for the 2008 and 2012 general elections; or not allowing students (who traditionally vote Democratic) to vote in precincts where they study.

For this reason, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed a lawsuit challenging not only voter ID laws but other laws affecting the above mentioned issues – early voting, voting outside precinct, redistricting -  put into law in the state of NC in 2013 to be enacted starting 2016 . The law suit targets provisions of the law that clearly disenfranchise voters who have hourly-wage low-income jobs and lack transportation, work flexibility, and/or child care options.

As a knee jerk reaction to this pending law suit, the North Carolina legislature passed a bill in June 2015 that softened the original voter ID laws. The legislature expected the case would be dismissed after softening of the law. That was not the case; the judge did not dismiss it.  As a result, not only will it be interesting to observe how the new-strict-yet-now-softened voting laws create more chaos in the voting logistics, but even more interesting will be to see if the judge determines, as many other judges across the nation have, whether these laws place unduly burden on minority and vulnerable voters.

While Rep McGrady of North Carolina suggests 70% of citizens are in favor of voter ID laws, in fact public polls indicate Americans are divided along party lines. 87% of Republicans are in favor of support requiring ID to vote, whereas 52% of Democrats do. Most importantly, however, while it remains to be seen how the North Carolina judge decides, so far, state superior and appellate court judges do not agree with the voter ID laws.

As Michael Hiltzik of  the LA Times writes of  and quotes conservative U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner of Chicago "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters. Democracy North Carolina released a report that voting restrictions in that state would reduce turn out by at least 30,000 voters.

Reverend Dr. Barber, leader of the North Carolina National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) feels how this affects his constituents. As an ongoing series of “Moral Mondays” Dr Barber and followers protest extreme policies enacted by the Republican legislature since 2013, Dr Barber and followers were arrested and put in jail for three days in June 2015 while protesting voter suppression laws.  After his release he said, "We will continue to fight these charges that attempt to limit how loudly we can express our First Amendment rights. We will also continue to challenge our legislature, which wants to make it easier to buy a gun than to vote."

The controversial ID laws lead to emotional political fights that go beyond parliament buildings and into the street reminiscing Civil Rights movements. They go hand in hand with messy law suits in various states. Civil groups are organizing to highlight the injustice of the voter ID laws.

While political and judicial battles highlight how one party is taking advantage of a weak and flawed system to gain unfair advantage in political power, there is no serious sign of anyone going beyond the political discussion and stepping up to declare that maybe the entire structure is flawed and that it needs an apolitical systemic overhaul to progress towards modern election standards, where everyone is treated equally with obstacle-course-free access to basic services. Jimmy Carter and James Baker did write a report a decade ago in which a universal voter photo ID law was recommended – but if enacted, it would need five years to be implemented and it would require mobile vehicles bringing government photo ID issuing staff to where the rural, poor, minorities, elderly and other vulnerable citizens live.

The jerry-rigging and constant changes related to the voter ID laws, as well as the gerrymandering of political precinct borders in the USA come as no surprise – it is not dissimilar to developments in other large public issues such as education,  health care, infrastructure, energy, transportation, where the one determining political tool is not nationwide will, but strings of polarized law suits.

In the meantime, Republican governors such as Hailey of South Carolina who sign off on voter ID laws knowing they are disenfranchising voter groups and thus risking their political image, will hypocritically offer an ineffective one-time: “free ID day at your nearest DMV”.  Then there is the more confident state of Texas that does not accept student IDs, however, it does accept weapon permits as valid photo ID.  Dr Barber knows what he is talking about when he says it is easier to own a gun than vote for some people.

---

 [MB1]In practice, they were forbidden from voting.

 [MB2]

Austrians dealing with onslaught of refugees

Small towns of a small European country show big humanity in global crisis

The park benches on the aqua blue lake of this suburb of Austria’s Southern-most provincial capital are occupied by young men soaking up the sun occasionally jumping into the refreshing crystal clear water. These young men share the benches with a few locals, some of whom are there with dogs. At one point two men shyly ask a local to take a picture of them on their cell phone with the backdrop of the majestic lake and prominent mountains; the local happily complies and tries to share photographic preferences. Otherwise, the playing dogs are ice-breakers in due to language barrier (sadly) limited conversation between the locals and these dozen or so refugees who are taking a break from the temporary housing offered in tents pitched on the grounds of the State police compound on the main road of this suburb, Krumpendorf am Wörthersee.

On July 4^th, 2015, Krumpendorf, population of 2,000, received 240 refugees from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan or Georgia.  The Federal Government struck an agreement with the locality to take in these refugees since the main refugee camp – the first stop for all incoming refugees - in another province close to Vienna, Traiskirchen, was overflowing. With a capacity of approximately 4,500 beds, 1,500 additional refugees were cramped-in camping under the sky around the buildings without a bed and limited access to sanitation.

The Federal Government is scrambling to transfer these new arriving refugees to other locations throughout the country, in order for them to find hygienically acceptable shelter. The plan, which was widely discussed publicly, was to spread out incoming refugees throughout the nine Provinces proportionally to their population. This was initially met with some resistance from the more conservative Provincial leaders of the Province of Tyrol, as well as some mayors. Before anything could be finalized on a national scale, a handful of small towns the size of Krumpendorf took in a couple hundred refugees as a temporary solution to the overflow in Traiskirchen.

Since the crisis with warfare in the Middle East related to ISIS, refugees are streaming in via the Mediterranean Sea into Italy and more and more into Greece (by July 2015 130,500). Most refugees goal is to go North to Sweden or to neighboring Germany, which is expecting in 2015, 400,000 applications for asylum, up from approximately 200,000 in 2014; Germany is also scrambling to find lodging for the refugees. Austria, with a population of approximately 8 million and ten times smaller than that of Germany, has received by July 2015, 28,300 applications for asylum, twice the amount of all applications in 2014. 80,000 refugees are expected to come in 2015.

Since Greece claims it can no longer feed and lodge refugees, and Hungary (which is one of the countries the refugees travel through from Greece to Northern Europe) started discussing putting up a fence to keep refugees from coming in, Austria has experienced an onslaught of refugees.

While the Austrian Government is scrambling to solve this humanitarian and logistical crisis in a budgetary restricted time (for example empty military camps would be ideal sites to lodge refugees but these are up for sale) and some provincial leaders are not cooperating in easing the transfer of refugees away from the main camp in Traiskirchen to other locations around the country, the Austrian population and media is showing a strong humanitarian side.

Austria has a history of open doors to streams of refugees, dating back to the Cold War when first in 1956-1957 Austria, which had just signed its independence treaty from the Post War Occupation, took in 180,000 Hungarians fleeing the Soviet Invasion. Just above ten years later, in 1968, 162,000 Czechoslovakians found refuge in Austria with their invasion of the Soviet Union. With the war in Yugoslavia, Austria took in 90,000 Bosnians, of which 60,000 stayed permanently - adding a young and cosmopolitain work force positively felt in the streets and coffee shops of larger cities.

Many citizens remember these traumatic historical events right at their borders, and still feel the obligation to take in refugees from war-torn countries or other areas of crisis. Austrians, who are typically regulation-driven and law-abiding, are becoming impatient with lack of problem-solving capacity of the Federal and State Government and their bureaucracies, and thus their incapacity to get involved individually as citizens.

“My friends and I offered housing to the Provincial Government of Carinthia for 10 refugees; they gave us a long list of conditions so strict we were not able to comply. So we were forced to retract our offer. This is a big change from when we let in Hungarians and Czechs with open arms into our homes during the Cold War. Have they forgotten that? We really just want to help these human beings” says the owner of a publishing company in Southern Austria.

If they can’t help directly with the lodging issues, at least they can help in other ways; and many are doing just that. The Mayor of Krumpendorf prominently hung a "Welcome" banner the day the refugees arrived. In small town in the Province of Salzburg for example, that is lodging 6 refugees from Syria, Iran and Afghanistan, citizens are jumping in to offer language classes, and soccer games with local teams. In the Province of Upper Austria, citizens groups are hosting cooking nights where refugees teach their native cooking skills to the locals and other refugees, not only as a way to approach different cultures, but to ease tensions when psychologically helping these refugees talk about any trauma they may have experienced.

Krumpendorf has a very dynamic and active group “Lust auf Gerechtigkeit” (“Desire for Justice”), which organizes not only language classes given by volunteers, but an informal foster network, where retirees mentor refugees; also the Catholic Church organizes benefit concerts, as well as clothes drives, which are all met with enthusiasm and abundance by the locals. One concert organizer excitedly emailed a newsletter the day after a concert to highlight the success of the event by quoting one refugee, "I danced with my new refugee and local friends to the rhythm of African drums and laughed for the first time in four years. Thank you". The local priest is proud to share that twenty Muslim refugees regularly attend his service, although they are not Catholic; in the past year he has also baptized a handful of refugees; he thus provides mental and non-denominational spiritual shelter as a means to cultural integration.

There were at least two instances when Southern-Austrian media reported that employees were instantly fired for posting on Facebook negative and insulting remarks about refugees. Also, original reporting of politicians critical of letting in refugees has been abandoned and replaced by reporting of humanitarian efforts and finding solutions to the logistical problems, bureaucratic weakness and political cooperation between parties, governors and mayors. It is currently politically incorrect to be against letting in refugees.  And that is influencing leaders’ and politicians’ actions.

When some question the fact that all refugees are young males and may represent a threat to security, interviews with the Minister of Interior remind us of a study that these are not young camouflaged mini ISIS cells, but rather were send off by their large family back home selected as the youngest, healthiest and smartest who would make it to safety and maybe later on, help bring the rest of the family also to safety.

The length for applications for asylum also indicate that security issues are not being neglected: the length for application depends on the country of origin. Asylum seekers from war torn Syrian have to wait years to obtain asylum status, whereas refugees from Kosovo wait a few months. And there is open discussion that it might be time to reject refugees from Kosovo, as these are no longer fleeing war or oppression but rather mere economic lack of opportunity, and these should make place for the refugees fleeing war areas or other crisis. That is the extent of open criticism of liberalism with onslaught of refugees.

On his way home from the lake, a retired Member of European Parliament makes sure to greet his fellow lake-enjoyers looking each young refugee in the eye, explaining, “It is my duty to make them feel welcome, not only as refugees seeking humanity but as potentially future productive citizens of this country. Hopefully the latter will be soon, because what a waste of talent to have them wait around for years to receive their asylum status and be able to seek work”. This resonates well with the mood of many Austrians, whose open arms are their war against terror.

Umweltpolitik in North Carolina 2014

Erin Brokowich ist nicht die einzige Heldin in den USA.

Charlotte, North Carolina, ist nach New York City die zweitgrößte Finanzstadt der USA. Auch der größte Stromerzeuger in den USA, Duke Energy, hat seinen Hauptsitz in Charlotte. Die Stadt liegt am Catawba Fluss, der nach dem Stamme der Catawba Indianer benannt ist (“Menschen des Flusses”). Der Catawba Fluss hat viel von seiner ursprünglich uneingeschränkt fließenden Sorglosigkeit eingebüßt, die ihn kennzeichnete, als er noch Lebensort und -ader der Catawba Indianer war.

Charlotte ist heute eine 1,5 Millionen-Einwohner-Metropole in den Südstaaten, etwa 800 Kilometer südlich von Washington DC. Der 350 Kilometer lange Catawba Fluss wurde seit Anfang des 20 Jahrhunderts durch verschiedene Staudämme zu 11 Seen zwischen den Blue Ridge Mountains und den Atlantik umreguliert. Um Charlotte herum wird der Catawba Fluss in drei Seen unterteilt: Mountain Island Lake, Lake Wylie und Lake Norman.

Diese drei Gewässer und ihre Ufer erfüllen heutzutage viele Funktionen:  Sie werden genutzt

·     -  als Wassergrundstück für Hunderttausend Einwohner,

·      - zur Freizeitnutzung  (Motorboot fahren und Fischen  durch Anrainer

·      - für Kühlflüssigkeit für zwei Atomkraftwerke,

·      - als unmittelbares Randgebiet von vier der insgesamt 44 „High Hazard Coal Ash Ponds” (Kohleascheablagerungsteiche von Kohlekraftwerken mit hohem Gefährdungspotential). Diese sind von der US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) als solche ausgewiesen und sind noch unreglementiert.

·      - als Wasserzulieferer für zwei Wasserkraftwerke,

·      - als Zufluss von mehreren Kläranlagen von der Stadt Charlotte (fuenf alleine von der Stadt) und umliegende Staedte, sowie von eine Unzahl an Sickergruben und Regenwasserzulaufbecken,

·      - als Sammelbecken für Herbizide, Pestizide und Düngemittel der Gärten der umliegenden Wohngebiete,

·      - als Gewässer, in dem viele kleine Flüsse enden, die auf ihrem Weg dorthin durch Erosion und Sedimentation stark verschmutzt werden und trotz alledem,

·      - auch als Trinkwasserreservoir für mehr als 800.000 Einwohner von Charlotte und umliegende Gemeinden.

Der Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities District (CMUD) betreibt drei angrenzenden Trinkwasseranlagen, sowie fuenf Kläranlagen und schafft es trotz all diesen unvorteilhaften Gegebenheiten, das Trinkwasser und die Kläranlagenabwasser auf die nationalen per Environmental Protection Agency („EPA“) akzeptablen Standards zu bringen. Nicht alle Kläranlagenbetreiber an diesen Gewässern sind so erfolgreich wie CMUD.

In den letzten Jahren gab es eine Handvoll von Kläranlagenüberflutungen in die Catawba hinein (Regenwasserueberlauf ist ein eigenes grosses Problem, die seit ein paar Jahren aggressive mit Zulaufbecken versucht wird zu kontrollieren). Diese Überläufe sind aber rechtswidrig und werden bestraft. Viele kleinere Kläranlagebetreiber klagen, dass sie wegen immer geringer werdender Budgets und gleichzeitig höheren Strafen unter finanziellem Druck stehen und oft Anlagenerneuerungen verschieben müssen, um Strafen zu bezahlen. Die Betreiber einer Kläranlage einer 8000 Einwohner großen Gemeinde bei Charlotte musste neulich eine Strafe von $136.000 für einen Abwasserüberlauf in die Catawba zahlen.

Am 2. Februar 2014 gab es bei einem Bruch in einem Kohleascheteich (von einem 276 MW Duke Energy Kohlekraftwerk) am Dan Fluss im Norden von North Carolina eine Verschmutzung von 50.000 bis 82.000 Tonnen Kohleasche. Bis zu 100 Millionen Liter Kohleaschewasser verschmutzten den Fluss mit toxischen Schwermetallen. Da es für Teiche jedoch keine ausreichenden Schutzbestimmungen gibt, muss die Firma Duke Energy (die $25 Milliarden Einnahmen in 2013 hatte) für die toxische Verschmutzung aus einem Betrieb, der 200.000 Kunden versorgt, keine Strafe zahlen. Ein starker Kontrast zu $136.000 für einen 8000-Kunden-Betrieb.

Ein positiver Nebeneffekt dieses Dammbruchs beim Kohleascheteich ist, dass endlich die vier Kohleascheablagerteiche an Charlotte’s Trinkwasserreservoir negativ in den Medien stehen. Jahrelang wurde dieses latente Problem der Existenz der Kohleascheablagerteiche ignoriert und kaum überwacht – nur die Dämme wurden auf Anweisung hin alle 5 Jahre einer Inspektion unterzogen. Und nach diesem Dammbruch beim Kohleascheteich am Dan Fluss, wird nun der Betreiber der Kohlekraftwerke und der Teiche, Duke Energy, nach langem politischen und juristischen Drama gezwungen, sämtliche Kohleascheteiche aller Kohlkraftwerke in North Carolina zu leeren und die Kohleasche anders zu lagern bzw. zu verwerten. Wie, ist noch nicht bekannt.

Gleichzeitig wird die Daseinsberechtigung der Ablagerteiche der Kohlekraftwerkaschen auf mehreren Ebenen in Frage gestellt. Und endlich wächst in der Bevölkerung ein Bewusstsein für die Gefahren ihres Trinkwassers, mit denen sich bisher nur ein paar Buergerinitiativen auseinandergesetzt haben.

Die Buergerinitiative Catawba River Keepers (“Beschützer des Catawba Flusses”) überwachen schon einige Jahre diese Teiche. Im Trend ist es nicht gerade, Umwelt- oder Trinkwasserschutz zu betreiben. Die “Catawba River Keepers” sind eine Umweltschutzorganisation, die auf den Fluss achtet und Bewusstsein für die Probleme schaffen will. Sie besteht aus einer Handvoll Angestellten, die durch Mitgliedsbeiträge oder Wohltätigkeitsveranstaltungen (wie Stand Up Paddeling Wettkaempfe) finanziert werden.

Trotz bescheidener Finanzierung und Unterstützung haben die Catawba River Keepers Proben und Studien über den Catawba Fluss gemacht. Ihre Studien deuten darauf hin, dass die Kohleasche Substanzen (toxische Schwermetalle wie vor allem Arsen), ins Grundwasser um die Kohleascheteiche abgibt. Außerdem wurde bewiesen, dass die Schwermetalle zwar zum Boden der Gewässer sedimentieren,  sich mit der Zeit jedoch im Wasser lösen. Das erklärt, warum die Schwermetalle in den Fischen im Catawba zu finden sind. Diese Information wurde in der Öffentlichkeit publik und deswegen erwägt die lokale Gesundheitsorganisation nun, den Konsum von Fisch aus den Catawbaseen nicht uneingeschränkt zu empfehlen.

Rätselhaft bleibt, warum beim größten Stromversorger des reichsten Landes der Welt toxische Teiche am Rande von einem Trinkwasserreservoir für mehr als 800.000 Einwohner ohne Regulierung und ohne Schutz betrieben werden konnten. Die vier Teiche mit insgesamt zwei Milliarden Kilogramm Kohleasche, sind vom Trinkwasserreservoir nur durch einem Erddamm ohne physische Barriere wie Vlies, Folie oder sonstige dichte Trennung geschützt.

Diese umweltunfreundliche Einstellung wurde in den letzten Jahren in North Carolina mit einer stark Republikanischen Führung noch schlimmer. North Carolina wurde jahrzehntelang von einer Demokratischen Herrschaft regiert, die den Umweltschutz unterstützte. Die von den Demokraten eingeführten Umweltschutzmaßnahmen wurden nun jedoch von dem mehrheitlich Republikanischen Staatshaus und -Senat rückgängig gemacht, indem jedes einzelne Wasserschutzgesetz durch eine wieder eingeführte “Rules and Regulation“ Behörde kritisch untersucht wurde. Auch die Budgets der Umweltämter wurden drastisch gekürzt. Auch bei der Environmental Management Commission (EMC) wurden alle Vorstandsmitglieder vom Republikanischen Gouverneur neu ernannt. Diese Organisation kontrolliert das Department of Natural Resources (DENR), das für die Umsetzung aller Umweltregulierungen zuständig ist. Das DENR bekam auch einen neuen Vorstandsvorsitzenden, welcher unter der Leitung von EMC arbeitet. Er machte den verbliebenen DENR Angestellten klar, dass sie nun ihre Bemühungen auf  Kompromissfähigkeit für “die Geschaeftswelt“ (sprich den Betrieb der Firmen nicht mit Umweltverordnungen zu erschweren) konzentrieren sollen. Daraufhin haben einige Angestellte des DENR aus ethischen Gründen ihre Posten verlassen – sie wollten schließlich der Umwelt und nicht der Geschäftswelt dienen.

Das Leben wurde also für die Catawba River Keepers noch schwerer. Sie mussten nun auch auf die Unterstützung vom DENR verzichten. Immerhin konnten sie die Bevölkerung informieren, welche Gesetze nun in Gefahr waren, eliminiert zu werden und welche geändert wurden. Zum Beispiel, was Kohleascheteiche betraf: Die Verantwortung für eine Umweltverschmutzung wurde manipuliert. Wenn Verschmutzungen außerhalb der Grundstücksgrenze eines Betreibers auftreten, ist dieser nicht für dafür verantwortlich zu machen, auch wenn sie durch ihn verschuldet wurden.  Sollten also außerhalb des Grundstückes eines Teichbetriebes toxische Schwermetalle in dem Sediment im See gefunden werden, liegt dies nicht im Verantwortungsbereich des Teichbetreibers.

Für den Fall, dass im Gewässer toxische Werte von Kohleasche entdeckt werden, findet statt einer sofortigen Sanierung zuerst eine Bewertung statt, obwohl es genügend Informationen zur Problematik gibt. Zurecht bedauern Umweltschützer, dass diese Verzögerungstaktik der Zeitbombe nur mehr Zündstoff gibt.

Die Catawba River Keepers musste also ihre Strategie ändern und die Entscheidungsträger in typisch amerikanischer Art begegnen - mit einer Klage.

Die Catawba River Keepers haben durch die Southern Environmental Law Group gegen Duke Energy geklagt. Die Klage lautet, Duke Energy hielte die Bestimmungen des „Clean Water Act“ nicht ein, da Duke Energy mit ihrer Kohleasche das Trinkwasser von Charlotte und Umgebung verschmutze. Die Southern Environmental Law Group war mit einer vergleichbaren Klage im Bundesstaat von South Carolina erfolgreich und hatte den größten Stromversorger dort dazu gebracht, ihre Kohleascheteiche freiwillig zu sanieren.

So leicht war es in North Carolina nicht. Laut Gesetz wird eine Klage im Auftrag von Bürgern (in dem Fall die Catawba River Keepers) nichtig, wenn der Bundesstaat eine eigene Klage innerhalb von 60 Tagen nach der ursprünglichen Bürgerklage einreicht. Wenige Tage vor Ablauf der 60 Tage hat die DENR im Namen des Bundesstaats North Carolina eine eigene Klage eingereicht und damit die ursprüngliche Klage gegenstandslos gemacht.

Die Klage des DENR war jedoch offensichtlich politisches Manöver zwischen Republikanischer Führung im Bundesstaat und der Führung des DENR – bei der Klage war es um lächerliche $90.000 gegangen - eine Summe, die der toxischen  Relevanz der Kohleascheteiche für die Umwelt mitnichten gerecht wird. Die Catawba River Keepers legten also gegen die Legitimität dieser Klage Einspruch.

Aber dann hat das Schicksal nachgeholfen. Der Dammbruch beim Kohleascheteich im Norden des Staates machte der Bevölkerung auf einen Schlag klar, welche massive Gefährdung für Charlottes Trinkwasser diese Umweltverschmutzung bedeutete. Der Richter, der über die Klagen urteilen wird, hat neue Erkenntnisse gewonnen und verlangt nun neue Untersuchungen von Duke Energy und DENR. Gleichzeitig wurde eine Grand Jury gegen den Dammbruch einberufen, die Information über Betrieb und Inspektionen aller Kohleascheteiche verlangt. Es beginnt nun eine Katz- und Mausspiel bezüglich der Informationstransparenz – Duke Energy will aus ersichtlichen Gründen nicht alles offenlegen.

Politisch ist es auch etwas peinlich für den Republikanischen Gouverneur Pat McCrory: Er arbeitete nicht nur über Jahrzehnte für Duke Energy, sondern hat als Gouverneur alle neuen umweltunfreundlichen Gesetze unterschrieben. Seinen Ruf in der Öffentlichkeit wollte er anschließend mit ein paar Aussagen gegen Kohleasche und nicht ernst gemeinten Drohungen verbessern.

Tatsächlich aber geschieht nun dank des Dammbruchs und dank der langfristigen und gewissenhaften Arbeit der Catawba River Keepers und des Southern Environmental Law Center einiges, das den ewigen Status Quo der Kohleascheteiche ändern wird – die Richter haben nun viele eindeutige Anhaltspunkte durch Studien. Die EPA möchte ab Dezember 2014 Richtlinien zum Umgang mit Kohleasche einführen. Gleichzeitig möchte die Gesetzgebung North Carolinas auch klare gesetzliche Rahmenbedingungen schaffen und verworfene Umweltgesetze wieder in Kraft setzen. Hierbei spielen vor allem die Verantwortungsgrenzen bei Umweltverschmutzung eine wichtige Rolle sowie der erhöhte Druck, zu sanieren statt wie bisher immer nur zu evaluieren.

Vielleicht kann und will sogar der Gouverneur nun ernsthaft Einfluss nehmen, wenn er Duke Energie öffentliche Briefe schreibt und dabei der Firma droht, sie mögen die Kohleascheteiche besser sanieren, “da sonst […]”.

Schlussendlich haben nur der Richter und die Grand Jury das Sagen, die jetzt die Daten und Informationen der echten Experten durchschauen. Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob die Kohleasche nun bald am schnell expandierenden Flughafen Charlotte wiederverwertet wird oder nicht. Das wäre in jedem Fall eine attraktive Lösung.

Egal wie es kommt, die Buergerinitativen haben mit der Kohleaschesituation in Charlotte noch viel Arbeit vor sich. Vor allem die Durchdringung und optimale Nutzung der Bürgerrechte spielen hierbei eine zentrale Rolle. Wichtig ist, dass die Bevölkerung von Charlotte weiß, wie dankbar sie für diese Buergerinitiativen sein sollen, die gegen den Strom schwimmt, um zu ermöglichen, dass das Trinkwasser für Charlotte trinkbar und vor einer toxischen Verschmutzung verschont bleibt.