Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 7 P31 pot

of incorporation, conduct regular meetings, and fulfill other obligations to achieve and maintain corporate status. Nonprofit corporations differ from profit- driven corporations in several respects. The most basic difference is that nonprofit corpora- tions cannot operate for profit. That is, they cannot distribute corporate income to share- holders. The funds acquired by nonprofit corporations must stay within the corporate accounts to pay for reasonable salaries, expenses, and the activities of the corporation. If the income of a corporation inures to the personal benefit of any individual, the corporation is considered to be profit driven. Salaries are not considered personal be nefits because they are necessary for the operation of the corporation. An excessive salary, however, may cause a corporation to lose its nonprofit status. Nonprofit corporations are exempt from the income taxes that affect other corporations but only if they conduct business exclusively for the benefit of the general public. State laws on corporations vary from state to state, but generally states give tax breaks and exemptions to nonprofit corporations that are organized and operated exclusively for either a religious, charitable, scientific, public safety, literary, or educational purpose, or for the purpose of fostering international sports or preventing cru- elty to children or animals. Nonprofit organiza- tions may charge money for their services, and contributions to tax-exempt nonprofit organiza- tions are tax deductible. The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE must approve the tax-exempt status of all nonprofit organizations except churches. A vast number of organizations qualify for nonprofit status under the various definitions. Nonprofit organizations include churches, soup kitchens, charities, political associations, business leagues, fraternities, sororities, sports leagues, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, hospitals, museums, television stations, symphonies, and public interest law firms. A nonprofit corporation with a public purpose is just one organization that qualifies for tax-exempt status. Under Section 501 of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (26 U.S.C.A. § 501), more than two dozen different categories of income-producing but not-for-profit organiza- tions are exempt from federal income taxes. These other tax-exempt organizations include credit unions, civic leagues, recreational clubs, fraternal orders and societies, labor, agricultural, and horticultural organizations, small insurance companies, and organizations of past or present members of the arme d forces of the United States. The numb er of nonprofit corporations in the United States continued to increase into the twenty-first century. Although nonprofit cor- porations cannot produce dividends for inves- tors, they provide income for the employees, and they foster work that benefits the public. The activities of nonprofit corporations are regulated more strictly than the activities of other corporations. Nonprofit corporations cannot contribute to political campaigns, and they cannot engage in a substantial amount of legislative LOBBYING. RESOURCES Barrett, David W. 1996. “A Call for More Lenient Director Liability Standards for Small, Charitable Nonprofit Corporations.” Indiana Law Journal 71 (fall). Available online at http://law.indiana.edu/ilj/volumes/v72/no2/ National Nonprofit Associations, by Number and Type, in 2009 a Includes national and binational chambers of commerce and tourism. SOURCE: The Gale Group, Encyclopedia of Associations, 2009. Trade, business, commercial a 4,165 Educational 1,530 Health, medical 3,552 Public affairs 1,842 Hobby, avocational, fan clubs 1,772 Social welfare 2,582 Engineering, technological, natural and social sciences 1,588 Religious 1,146 Environment, agriculture 1,439 Athletic, sports 1,008 Legal, governmental, public administration, military 951 Veteran, heredity, patriotic 645 Fraternal, foreign interest, national, ethnic, cultural 2,419 Greek or non-Greek letter societies 325 Labor unions 212 ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 288 NONPROFIT barrett.html; website home page: http://law.indiana.edu (accessed August 17, 2009). Hammack, David C., ed. 1998. Making the Nonprofit Sector in the United States. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Ott, J. Steven, ed. 2001. Understanding Nonprofit Organiza- tions: Governance, Leadership, and Management. Boulder, CO: Westview. NONSUIT A broad term for any of several ways to terminate a legal action without an actual determination of the controversy on the merits. For instance, a judgment of nonsuit may be granted against a PLAINTIFF who either fails to pursue or abandons the action. Also, a nonsuit does not prejudice parties against seeking relief in subsequent lawsuits under doctrines of RES JUDICATA and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. NONSUPPORT The failure of one individual to provide financial maintenance for another individual in spite of a legal obligation to do so. Nonsupport of a spouse or child is a crime in some states and a ground for DIVORCE in certain jurisdictions. CROSS REFERENCE Child Support. v NORRIS, GEORGE WILLIAM George William Norris was born July 11, 1861, in Sandusky County, Ohio. He graduated from Indiana Normal College in 1881 and pursued a career in law and politics. After admission to the Ohio and Indiana bars in 1883, Norris established a law practice in Nebraska, where he also served as prosecuting attorney. He presided as a Nebraska district court judge from 1895 to 1902. In 1902 Norris was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1910 he was instrumental in modifying the House rules so as to diminish the excessive powers of House Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon. In January 1911 Norris assisted in the creation of The National Progressive Republi- can League, serving as the nascent group’s vice president. After initially backing ROBERT LA FOLLETTE , Sr. for the 1912 presidential nomi- nation, Norr is then moved his ALLEGIANCE to Roosevelt. He would not join Roosevelt’s PROGRES- SIVE PARTY , however, and instead pursued Senate election as a Republican. George W. Norris. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS George William Norris 1861–1944 ❖ 1861 Born, Sandusky County, Ohio 1881 Graduated from Indiana Normal College 1883 Passed Ohio and Indiana bars; moved to Nebraska 1914–18 World War I 1944 Died, McCook, Neb. 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1932 Drafted 20th Amendment, designating January 20 as the presidential inauguration date; helped pass Norris- LaGuardia Act 1939–45 World War II ▼▼ ▼▼ 19001900 19251925 1950 1950 18501850 18751875 ❖ ◆◆ 1910 Helped modify House rules so as to diminish the excessive powers of the House Speaker 1943 Retired from Senate 1917 Opposed U.S. entry in World War I ◆ ◆ ◆ 1933 Helped draft measures establishing Tennessee Valley Authority 1902 Elected to U.S. House ◆◆◆ ◆ 1895–1902 Served as Nebraska district judge 1912 Elected to U.S. Senate GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NORRIS, GEORGE WILLIAM 289 In 1912 Norris was elected to the Senate, where he would serve for the next 30 years. He opposed the entry of the United States into WORLD WAR I but generally supported the policies of President FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT. During Roosevelt’s administrations, Norris was in- volved in several important activities. In 1932 he drafted the TWENTIETH AMENDMENT to the Constitution, which designated January 20 as the date of a presidential inauguration instead of the traditional March 4, thus eliminating the need for a “lame duck” congressional session. During that same year, he was instrumental in the passage of the NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT (29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.), which restricted the use of injunctions in labor disagreements. He also helped to draft measures for the establishment of the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY in 1933 and advocated programs for farm relief. Norris backed direct election of senators and urged the use of the unicameral system. Nebraska began use of this system in their Legislature in 1934. Norris died September 2, 1944, in McCook, Nebraska. FURTHER READING Norris, George William. 1992. Fighting Liberal: The Autobiog- raphy of George W. Norris. Reprint. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press. NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT The Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.) is one of the initial federal labor laws in favor of organized labor. It was enacted in 1932 to provide that contracts that limit an employ- ee’s right to join a LABOR UNION are unlawful. Such contracts are commonly known as yellow dog contracts. Initially the law was known as the “anti-injunction act ” since its numerous restrictions had the effect of stopping any federal court from issuing an INJUNCTION to end a labor dispute. In one part of the act, for example, there is a provision that an injunction prohibit- ing a strike cannot be issued unless the local police are either unwilling or unable to prevent damage or violence. Furthermore, the ac t holds that no court of the Unite d States shall have jurisdiction to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, unless findings of fact by the court establish: n That unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained; n That substantial and IRREPARABLE INJURY to the complainant’s property will follow; n That as to each item of relief granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon COMPLAINANT by the denial of relief than will be inflicte d upon defendants by the granting of relief; n That complainant has no ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW ;and n That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. CROSS R EFERENCE Labor Law. NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was made between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and took effect January 1, 1994. Its purpose is to increase the efficiency and fairness of trade among the three nations. At the heart of NAFTA is a simple goal: the elimination of tariffs—the taxes each nation imposes on the others’ imp orts —and other bureaucratic and legal barriers to trade. In addition to its central terms, the massive, highly detailed agreement also includes so-called side agreements intended to ensure that each nation enforces its own labor and environmental laws. The bulk of its regulations are to be phased in over the course of 15 years. The impetus for NAFTA developed in the 1980s. Its roots lie in the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement of 1988—implemented by the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C.A. § 2112 note [Supp. 1993])—which, by the mid-1990s, had already eliminated most trade barriers between the United States and Canada. With the world gradu- ally becoming divided into large regional trading blocs in which goods and services move freely, as in the European Union, NAFTA supporters saw the inclusion of Mexico as necessary for North America to compete internationally. In the United States, debate over NAFTA threatened to derail it. Proponents saw economic benefits for all three nations in the agreement. But opponents concentrated their attack on the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 290 NORRIS-LA GUARDIA ACT implications for the relationship between the United States and Mexico. They feared several potential outcomes if NAFTA were signed: the loss of U.S. jobs, damage to the environment as a result of economic growth in Mexico, and the likelihood that U.S. safety regulations would be challenged as barriers to free trade. In 1993, a coalition of consumer and envi- ronmental groups brought suit in an attempt to block congressional considerati on of the agree- ment. In Public Citizen v. United States Trade Representative, 5 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the coalition argued that the administration of President BILL CLINTON had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4321 et seq. [1977]), which requires all federal agencies to submit environmental impact statements for all legislation or actions that affect the environment. The suit failed when a federal appellate court ruled that it had no authority to review the president’s actions. In response to anti-NAFTA criticisms, the White House negotiated three side agreements that were signed on September 14, 1993. The side agreements attempted to ensure that the three countries woul d comply with their own labor and environmental laws; would establish fines and limited trade sanctions for violations; and would call for consultations by the mem- bers if increases in imports from one country appeared to be having a strongly negative effect on an industry in one of the other countries. Two months later NAFTA won congressional approval. The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES narrowly passed the implementing legislation (North American Free Trade Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 3314 et seq., Pub. L. No. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057), and the Senate also passed it. NAFTA specifies a timetable for its changes. When the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994, the United States eliminated all tariffs on 60 percent of imports from Mexico that previously were subject to tariffs. On January 1, 2003, more U.S. tariffs on Mexico’s imports were removed, and 92 percent of previously taxed Mexican goods were able to enter the United States without tariffs. Finally, on January 1, 2008, all remaining tariffs on the three countries’ goods were eliminated. Other barriers were removed beginning January 1, 2000. For in- stance, U.S. banks, which had traditionally been shut out of Mexico, became free to take over as much as 15 percent of the Mexican financial market. However, in 2009, Mexico imposed tariffs on $2.4 billion worth of U.S. goods in retaliation for a ban of its trucks from U.S. roads. The tariffs came after the U.S. suspended a program to allow Mexican 18-wheelers to deliver goods across the border. Investor Protection Provisions under NAFTA One of the more contro versial provisions in NAFTA (Chapter 11) involves the investor-to- state dispute resolution process. This provision provides a vehicle and a forum for corporations and other companies to sue governments directly for regulatory EXPROPRIATION, which is similar to EMINENT DOMAIN under domestic law. A company may allege regulatory expropriation in such instances as the actual taking of property by a country through condemnation or construc- tive taking by way of laws or regulations that negatively affe ct the commercial value of a property. In order for a company to BRING SUIT under this provision, it need only show that it is an investor party. In Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, a special NAFTA dispute resolutions panel awarded U.S. corporation Metalclad $16.7 million in damages under this provision. In response, Mexico filed an appeal. The decision was then reviewed by a neutral Canadian court, the SUPREME COURT of the Province of British Columbia, which upheld the decision, but slightly reduced the damages to $15 million. Both parties withdrew their appeals in 2001. Metalclad, a U.S. waste-disposal company, requested the creation of the special NAFTA President Bill Clinton signs a NAFTA side agreement on September 14, 1993. NAFTA won congressional approval two months later. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 291 tribunal in 1997, after a local Mexican govern- ment condemned property that Metalclad owned. The property in question was a closed toxic-waste dumping site, which Metalclad had purchased and which the company intended to clean up and reopen. After it purchased the site, Metalclad successfully secured permits for the $20 million project from Mexican federal authorities, including federal environmental agencies, but it had not coordinated with local authorities. Local and state authorities refused to issue permits to Metalclad, claiming that the site was part of a 600,000-acre protected environmental reserve. Metalclad complained to NAFTA officials, charging that the Mexican government’s actions constituted expropriation. Mexico countered that Metalclad had started construction without waiting for all levels of approval. In particular, what angered Mexican authorities was that Metalclad had bypassed local jurisdictional forums and gone directly to NAFTA, claiming $90 million in damages and lost profits. The Canadian court that reviewed the appeal found that the original NAFTA panel, meeting behind closed doors in Washington, had interpreted the NAFTA Chapter 11 investor protection clause too broadly. It disagreed with the panel’s decision that federal, state, and local governments in Mexico had issued a series of contradictory declarations to Metalclad, which violated the NAFTA guarantee of clear and transparent rules to protect investors. Some companies have used the NAFTA investor protection clause to file multimillion- dollar damage claims against the three member countries of NAFTA. Many of them alleged trade-restrictive practices involving environ- mental regulations. For example, Canada’s Methanex Corporation filed a claim against the United States, charging that the California’s s ban on the gasoline additive MTBE resulted in company losses of more than $1 billion. The claim was ultimately rejected, and the com- pany was required to pay the U.S. government $3 million dollars in costs. Conversely, the U.S based Ethyl Corporation was r eimbursed $13 million in damages for Canada’s restrictions on the importation of the gasoline additive MMT. FURTHER READINGS Folsom, Ralph. 2008. NAFTA and Free Trade in the Americas in a Nutshell. 3d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West. NAFTA Handbook. 2002. Buffalo, N.Y.: W. S. Hein. CROSS R EFERENCES Canada and the Uni ted States; Mexico and the United States. NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a collective security group that was established by the North Atlantic Treaty (34 U.N.T.S. 243) in 1949 to block the threat of military aggres- sion in Europe by the Soviet Union. NAT O united Western Europe and North America in a commitment of mutual security and collec- tive self-defense. By April 2009, its 28 members— including Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have used NATO as a framework for cooperation in military, political, economic, and social matters. NATO’s military forces are organized into three main commands: the Atlantic Command, the Channel Command, and the Allied Com- mand Europe. During peacetime, the three commands plan the defense of their areas and oversee and exercise the forces of member nations. The supreme Allied commander in Europe directs these units. Every supreme Allied commander through 1997 has been a U.S. general. NATO established the North Atlantic Coun- cil, a nonmilitary policy group, in the 1950s. It is composed of permanent delegates from all member nations and is headed by a secretary- general. It is responsible for general policy, budget issues, and administrative actions. The Military Committee, consisting of the chiefs of staff of the member nations’ armed forces, meets twice a year to define military policies and offer advice to the council. The North Atlantic Treaty calls for the peaceful resolution of disputes, but Article 5 pledges the use of the member nations’ forces for collective self-defense. During the 1950s Western Europe was concerned about Soviet aggression. Though U.S. troops had been stationed in Europe since the end of WORLD WAR II , the United States and European nations did not have the resources to match the Soviet GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 292 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Army soldier for soldier. Instead the United States stated that it would use NUCLEAR WEAPONS against Soviet aggression in Europe. In the 1960s the alliance was tested. President Charles de Gaulle of France complained about U.S. domination and control of NATO. In 1966 France expelled NATO troops from its soil and removed its troops from NATO command, but it remained a member of the organization. This action led to the relocation of NATO headquar- ters from Paris to Brussels. With the collapse of COMMUNISM in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, and with the reunification of Germany, NATO underwent a reassessment period. As of 2009 about 90,000 U.S. troops remain stationed in Europe, with another 2,000 troops stationed in Bosnia and Kosovo. In fact, the U.S. maintains the most powerful military force in Europe. Despite this situation, questions persist about the need for NATO in a post-Cold War world, with critics calling for Europe to shoulder more of its own defense burden. Despite the criticism, few U.S. leaders have expressed the desire to dismantle NATO. Instead, leaders appear to be seeking a new mission for the organization. Some have sug- gested that the United States retain a foothold in Europe to ensure political stability. Others urge use of NATO as a tool to defend western interests outside Europe. Since SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, NATO has taken on an additional role in the “War on Terrorism.” Nearly a year after U.S. coalition troops ousted the Taliban, 5,500 NATO troops were sent to Afghanistan to take over peace-keeping duties. This was the first time that NATO has mobilized a military force outside Europe. The re-emergence of the Taliban as a powerful force in the country and in neighbor- ing Pakistan since 2006 has required NATO to maintain its troop commitments. As of July 2009, there have been 1,205 coalition deaths. As part of the expanded mission envisioned for NATO, the group opened its membership to former Communist bloc countries of Eastern Europe. Russian leaders objected to this idea, North Atlantic Treaty Organization SOURCE: NATO Web site; list of countries available at htt p ://www.nato.int/c p s/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm (accessed on Au g ust 6, 2009). NATO members United States Belgium Canada Czech Republic Slovakia Denmark France Germany Estonia Latvia Greece Albania Hungary Iceland Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Spain Turkey Bulgaria Slovenia United Kingdom Lithuania Italy Croatia ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 293 seeing it as an attempt to end a Russian sphere of influence that has existed for 50 years. In 1997 Russia entered into an agreement with NATO in which Russia itself accepted a small role in the alliance. This arrangement was an attempt to further thaw relations between Russia and the West. It also helped facilitate former Soviet bloc nations in joining the Western alliance. NATO formally expanded in 1999, when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined. That expansion was approved only after long, contentious debate in the U.S. SENATE and elsewhere. In 2002 NATO entered into another new security agreement with Russia that further eased the entry of additional former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO. Under the new arrangement, Russia was given more authority in the new body than in the 1997 informal arrangement set up to nudge Moscow closer to the West. Even so, Russia’s future involvement has remained limited to certain areas, includ- ing crisis management, peacekeeping, and such military areas as air defense, search-and-rescue operations, and joint exercises. In 2004 NATO membership was extended to seven more countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. In 2009 Croatia and Albania joined, while the Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, and Ukraine have been promised future invitations to join. However, Rus sia objects to Georgia becoming a member. Its 2008 invasion of Georgia has com- plicated the prospects for Georgia’s admission. FURTHER READINGS Assenova, Margarita. 2003. The Debate on NATO’s Evolution. Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press. Moore, Rebecca. 2007. NATO’s New Mission: Projecting Stability in a Post-Cold War World. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available online at www.nato.int (accessed July 7, 2009). Schmidt, Gustav, ed. 2001. A History of NATO: The First Fifty Years. New York: Palgrave. CROSS REFERENCES Cold War; Communism. NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES CONVENTION, 1952 In the 1952 International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, the governments of Canada, Japan, and the United States joined together to establish cooperative measures for the conservation of the fishery stock of the North Pacific. The tripartite negotiations resulted in the creation of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, which, in addition to its duty to gather and compile information, is responsible for recommending changes in any conservation measures already in place. In limited situations, conservation measures may entail abstention from harvesting some stocks of fish. For example, in 1958 Japan temporarily agreed, under the terms of this convention, to abstain from certain salmon fishing in the North Pacific pending research to determine where to draw lines to apportion nations’ salmon stocks. CROSS R EFERENCE Fish and Fishing. NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES CONVENTION, 1949 The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Conventio n was held in Washington, D.C., in 1949, to address emerging signs of over-fishing in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Its purpose was to conserve the fishery resources of the North Atlantic. Eleven nations thus joined to establish the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). In 1976, the Magnuson Fishery Con- servation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) established a domestic regime for U.S. fisheries. The United States subsequently found that the ICNAF convention was inconsistent with the late law, and ultimately it withdrew from the ICNAF. Eventually, it participated in the negotiation of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooper- ation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (NAFO Convention). FURTHER READING Senate Report 104-091: Fisheries Act of 1995. Report of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor- tation on S. 267, 104th Cong. CROSS R EFERENCE Fish and Fishing. NORTHWEST ORDINANCE The Northwest Ordinance, officially known as the Ordinance of 1787, created the Northwest Territory, organized its govern ing structure, and established the procedures by which terri- tories were admitted as states to the Union. It was derived from a proposal by THOMAS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 294 NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES CONVENTION, 1952 JEFFERSON concerning the formation of states from the territory acquired as a result of the Revolutionary War. The territory stretched from the Ohio River to the Mississippi River to the area around the Great Lakes and encompassed what are today Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. The reaction to Jefferson’s proposal was mixed, and it was only when the Ohio Company of Associates expressed interest in purchasing the land that Congress took action. The ordinance, passed by Congress in July 1787, was significant in providing a framework for the admission of territories into the Union as states. A government composed of a gover- nor, a secretary, and three judges appointed by Congress was established in the region north of the Ohio River. When the population of the territory reached 5,000, the inhabitants were authorized to elect a leg islature and to be represented in the House of Representatives by a nonvoting member. When a designated area of the territory had 60,000 residents, that area could seek to become a state by complying with the requirements of the ordinance. Congress required that the territory be divided into at least three but not more than five states. Five states were eventually carved out of the territory. Aside from the provisions concerning state- hood, the Northwest Ordinance had two distinct prohibitions. There was to be no SLAVERY within the boundaries of the territory, and no law could be enacted that would impair a contract. The Northwest Ordinance was important because it provided the foundation fo r the creation of later territories within the Union and established the process by which territories became states. FURTHER READINGS Williams, Frederick D., ed. 1989. The Northwest Ordinance: Essays on Its Formulation, Provisions, and Legacy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Onuf, Peter S. 1987. Statehood and Union: A History of the Northwest Ordinance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. CROSS REFERENCE Territories of the United States. v NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES Eleanor Holmes Norton is a politician, lawyer, educator, and CIVIL RIGHTS activist. As the District of Columbia’s delegate to the U.S. Congress, she expanded the district’s power over its own affairs. Norton, the eldest of three daughters, was born to Coleman Holmes and Vela Holmes on June 13, 1937, in Washington, D.C . Her father was a government employee in the District of Columbia, and her mother was a schoolteacher. Norton grew up in the segregated Washington, D.C., of the 1940s and 1950s and was a member of the last segregated class at Dunbar High School. Norton attended Antioch College, where she participated in many civil rights protests, and she graduated from Yale Law School. In 1965 Norton became an attorney with the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), seek- ing to defend the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. The clients she represented were not always those she had imagined. Among them were former Alabama governor GEORGE WALLACE, an avowed segregationist, who had been denied a permit to speak at New York City’sShea Stadium, and a group of white supremacists who had been barred from holding a rally. The white supremacists’ suit eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Norton argued it and won (Carroll v. President of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 89 S. Ct. 347, 21 L. Ed. 2d 325 [1968]). In 1970 Norton becam e head of the New York City Commission on Human Rights. In 1977 President JIMMY CARTER appointed her to run the federal EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), which was facing a backlog of nearly 100,000 unsettled AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and DISCRIMINATION complaints. At the EEOC Norton initiated a system known as “rapid charge processing,” which provided for infor- mal settlement procedures. By late 1980 the backlog had dropped to 32,000 complaints. The National Association for the Adv ancement of Colored People ( NAACP) criticized the agency’s emphasis on settling individual complaints rather than attacking broad patterns of discrim- ination. But Norton argued that only by wiping out the backlog could the EEOC get to these broader issues. By the time she left the agency, it was taking on more sweeping investigations, antidiscrimination guidelines for employers were in place, and the Carter administration was enforcing workplace laws such as the EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 (29 U.S.C.A. 206) and the AGE DISCRIMINATION in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.A. 621). ON BEHALF OF THE TAXPAYING CITIZENS I REPRESENT,IDEEPLY REGRET THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE VOTE I WON ON THE HOUSE FLOOR JUST TWO YEARS AGO . —ELEANOR NORTON GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES 295 Following Carter’s defeat in 1980, Norton moved on to the Urban Institute. In 1982 she joined the law faculty at Georgetown University Law Center, where she wrote widely on civil rights and education issues. In 1990 Norton was elected the nonvoting D.C. delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. During her first term, she helped the district government to obtain $300 million in new federal aid and a guarantee of steady increases in future aid. She secured seats on three House committees that greatly affect the district’s economy, and she was the only freshman legislator to be invited on a congressional fact-finding mission to the Mid- dle East following the Persian Gulf War. Norton also sought to increase the power of the D.C. delegate position. The district’s dele- gate to Congress is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution from becoming a full member of the House of Representatives, and had been allowed to vote only in legislative co mmittees. Norton argued that because she could vote in other committees, she should also be allowed to vote in the committee of the whole, where most of the business of the full House is conducted. In February 1993 the House granted Norton and the representatives of four U.S. territories— Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa—a limited vote in the com- mittee of the whole. The voting limitations included a provision that any time the delegates provided a margin of victory for legislation, a second vote would be held, from which the delegates would be excluded. Despite these restrictions, House Republicans filed suit in federal district court, asking that the delegates’ right to vote be taken away. In March 1993 U.S. district judge Harold Greene rejected the challenge (Michel v. Anderson, 817 F. Supp. 126 [D.D.C.]). The Republicans then appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the lower court (14 F. 3d 623 [D.C. Cir. 1994]). Norton and the four territorial representatives retained their voting privileges until January 1995, when a new House took them away. Eleanor Holmes Norton 1937– ▼▼ ▼▼ 2000 1975 1950 ❖ ◆ 1939–45 World War II 1937 Born, Washington, D.C. 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1964 Graduated from Yale Law School; began clerkship with A. Leon Higginbotham 1965 Joined ACLU as an attorney 1968 Argued Carroll v. President of Princess Anne before the U.S. Supreme Court 1982 Joined Georgetown University Law Center’s faculty 1981 Joined the Urban Institute 1977 Became head of the EEOC 1973–74 D.C. citizens gained right to limited home rule with an elected mayor and city council and gained a nonvoting representative in Congress 1990 Elected to U.S. House as D.C.’s nonvoting delegate 1999 D.C. voters filed lawsuit against federal government seeking full voting rights for their Congressional representative 2003 Introduced bill to give D.C. residents equal voting rights 1993 The House granted D.C. and the four U.S. territories limited voting rights in Congress; established the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission 1995 Republican-controlled House took away limited voting privileges of D.C. and four U.S. territories 2000 Introduced bill to abolish federal oversight of D.C. agencies ◆ 2008 Elected to tenth term in U.S. House ◆ 2009 U.S. Senate passed D.C. House Voting Rights Act Eleanor Holmes Norton. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 296 NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES Norton’s efforts on behalf of the District of Columbia extended outside the House of Representatives. Traditionally, the senior senator from each state, if a member of the president’s party, recommends to the president candidate s for federal judgeships and U.S. attorney posi- tions. Because the district has no senators, the president alone has made these appointments for it. In 1993 Norton convinced President BILL CLINTON to give her the advisory powers reserved for senators and to allow her to nominate candidates for a U.S. attorney posi- tion and five federal judgeships, becoming the first district congressional delegate to do so. Norton established the Federal Judicial Nomi- nating Commission, composed of members from the district, to forward recommendations to her. All five of the judges Norton ultimately recommended to the president had been active in D.C. legal circles, and four of them lived in the district. Norton also continued her predecessors’ efforts to obtain statehood for the district. After a three-year effort to bring the issue to the House floor, the measure failed by a vote of 277– 153. But Norton said that she would continue her efforts and that she would put new emphasis on gaining support for legislation that would expand the district’s limited HOME RULE. Norton also worked for increased federal contributions to the city’s PENSION system, for an end to congressional review of the city’s budget, and for the right of D.C. residents to choose local judges. In 2003 Norton was a member of sub- committees on the House Committee on Government Reform and the House Transpor- tation and Infrastructure Committee, where she had a full vote. She served as Democratic chair of the Women’s Caucus and in the Democratic House leadership group. Norton was elected to her tenth term in November 2008. On January 6, 2009, Norton introduced the D.C . House Voting Rights Act (H.R.157 157) in the House of Representatives, and it later passed. On February 26, 2009, the U.S. Senate passed the D.C. House Voting Rights Act (S.160). As of August 2009, the House Rules Committee was working on details of the legislation and House leadership was hopeful that the bill would come up for a vote. Norton achieved success in her bills that award $10,000 to all D.C. high school graduates to attend any public U.S. college or $2,500 to attend many private colleges because the District does not have a higher education system of state colleges. Norton has served on numerous boards including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Board of Governors of the D.C. Bar Associa- tion. She has received more than 50 honorary degrees and continues to fight for civil rights and human rights and to advocate strongly for full con gressional voting representation for District of Columbia citizens. FURTHER READINGS “Eleanor Holmes Norton.” House of Representatives Web site. Available online at www.norton.house.gov (accessed August 19, 2009). Lester, Joan Steinau. 2003. Fire In My Soul. New York: Atria Books. CROSS REFERENCE District of Columbia. NOTARY PUBLIC A public official whose main powers include administering oaths and attesting to signatures, both important and effective ways to minimize FRAUD in legal document s. The origin of notaries public can be traced to ancient Rome, where a notarius was held in high regard as legal counsel. During that era only the few people who knew how to write were qualified to serve as a notarius. A notarius wrote legal documents, including contracts and wills, and retained them for safekeeping. A small fee was charged for those services, a tradition that continued to modern times. As colonists settled in the New World, most transactions that required an oath or signature attestation were handled in the courts. During that period the few notaries who existed were appointed or elected in a manner similar to the election or appointment of judges. However, as trade with Europe began, the demand for notaries increased because of the large number of bills of exchange that needed to be w i tnessed. The auth ority to appoint notaries was trans- ferred to the states, where the SECRETARY OF STATE (or another nonjudicial office) usually acted as the appointer. In 1983 the Commission on Uniform State Laws passed the Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (14 U.L.A. 125), which covered nearly all aspects of the office of notary public, from the definition of duties to appointment policies. As of the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NOTARY PUBLIC 297 . nearly all aspects of the office of notary public, from the definition of duties to appointment policies. As of the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NOTARY PUBLIC 2 97 . BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 288 NONPROFIT barrett.html; website home page: http:/ /law. indiana.edu (accessed August 17, 2009). Hammack,. Holmes Norton. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 296 NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES Norton’s efforts on behalf of the District of Columbia extended outside the House of Representatives.