Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Homepage: http://www.aclu.org/blog
Posts by Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office
On The Cusp of History
originally posted by Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office for Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union [click here]
July 23, 2010 - 4:54 pm
Posted in Uncategorized | No comments
(Originally published on the Huffington Post.)
Anyone who works on reforming the criminal justice system can attest to the fact that such efforts often take years of commitment and dedication before bearing fruit. We are currently at just such a momen…
The New Jim Crow
May 11, 2010 - 1:24 pm
Posted in Uncategorized | No comments
(Originally posted on Huffington Post.)
By now, most everyone has heard about Arizona’s new law requiring police to demand to see documentation from anyone they stop whom they suspect is in the country illegally. What this really means is that people in Arizona will be forced to "show their papers" simply for looking or sounding "foreign." These draconian police tactics are more than just offensive and discriminatory — they’re unconstitutional. The law will result in harassment based on race, appearance, and language, carrying an echo of the Jim Crow South. America has fought too hard against racially divisive policies to allow this law to go forward.
The American Civil Liberties Union plans to challenge the constitutionality of the law in court, believing it is state-sanctioned racial profiling. The law will only make the rampant racial profiling of Latinos in Arizona worse than ever.
We are hardly the only group to raise concerns about the situation in Arizona — nor will we be the last. But in all the controversy and outrage over the political implications of this law, it’s important to remember the human toll that it will have on real people every day who will be its victims.
The racial profiling sure to result from the Arizona law will mean that people — citizens and noncitizens alike — will be harassed and discriminated against as they simply try to live their lives and take care of their families. People will be wrongfully detained and deported. And as we have seen with other local law enforcement of immigration laws, once someone is caught up in the web of law enforcement, it’s hard to find one’s way out — even if someone is in the country legally. Families sometimes never find out what has become of their loved ones, and those who are detained often are quickly forced or pressured to leave the U.S. Whether they are 85 or 13, they can be jailed for days, weeks, months, sometimes years, put on a prison bus and dropped off across the border. This is not how we should treat human beings.
The Arizona law will also alienate law enforcement from the communities they serve, eroding the trust necessary for police to keep neighborhoods safe. It will discourage people from turning to the police when they need to, even to report crimes. It will undermine public safety by diverting scarce security resources away from legitimate law enforcement and focus them on false threats from people who look or sound "suspicious." It will lead to mass incarceration, racial profiling and deportations. The ACLU has heard too many stories of brown-skinned U.S. citizens and legal residents who have been locked up for months or illegally deported for no valid reason.
Once we get past all the political controversy, what we are looking at is a human tragedy. This is not what America’s about, and we must do better.
Dr. Dorothy Height Told Us That It’s Not a Man’s Civil Rights World
April 29, 2010 - 10:21 am
Posted in Uncategorized | No comments
Today, a memorial service was held for civil rights pioneer Dorothy Height. Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, reflects upon Dr. Height’s activism.
The passing of Dr. Dorothy Height was a huge loss to the nation, particularly to American women. She inspired me and so many women leaders because she embraced and nurtured her sisters and daughters in the movement. I lost a role model and a mentor who, whenever we met, always clasped my hand in hers, looked me in the eyes and said, "Carry on."
She had a determination to stand her ground as a leader for over 70 years throughout the entire modern day civil rights movement which is sadly, to this day, a deeply male-dominated sphere. It is striking how Dr. Height outlasted so many men who were the civil rights leaders of the moment. It was her extraordinary combination of skills and attributes that were hardwired into her being: a tremendous memory for names, dates and events, flawless command of the English language, a unique speaking voice, an elegant style of dressing, her height, her steady temperament and unwavering good manners. Dr. Height was the embodiment of a dominant yet subtle form of grace.
Dr. Height’s quick mind could out-maneuver compatriots and adversaries. She was the tortoise and not the hare in the race. She stood steadfast with a regal bearing and a twinkle in her eye while the guys rushed to grab the microphone, and effectively chided them without humiliation when they forgot that women are the backbone of the most durable black institutions — whether it is the church, the voter registration efforts, the sororities, the Links, Jack & Jill, or her own National Council of Negro Women — groups with longevity and real staying power. Our mothers and sisters licked the envelopes, went door to door, registered the voters, went to the polls, fed the leaders and trained the kids to keep the movement going. Dr. Height never forgot about us.
Dr. Height often demonstrated her remarkable skill as the "clean-up" speaker. The men in the civil rights movement often had her speak last (so as to not to miss the elusive TV cameras) and when she did, she packed a powerful punch by putting the moment in historical context and reminding us to stay resolved to keep the pressure on. Unlike some leaders, when she spoke, she never burned a bridge with a vicious attack or an off-color remark, she rarely budged when men tried to shunt her aside, and she understood that whenever possible she should lift up the good that Black America had to offer — especially its women.
The female icons of the civil rights movement are a vanishing species in our collective consciousness: the late Rep. Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King, Myrlie Evers, C. Delores Tucker, Rep. Barbara Jordan and Althea Simmons, the first female head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Washington Bureau. Fortunately, we have women with great tenure in the civil rights movement in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Foremost among them is Rep. Maxine Waters, the CBC Chair Rep. Barbara Lee and Eleanor Homes Norton, but few know that there are 10 other black women in the Black Caucus. Black women leaders who have decades in the movement are not sought after by the media outlets, consulted for their social justice expertise and experience by think tanks, invited by those putting together congressional hearings, or even consulted by the Obama White House nearly as much as they should be. And let’s not forget about the women that Dr. Height personally mentored or inspired including former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, Barbara Arnwine, Elaine Jones, Melanie Campbell, Julienne Malveaux and countless women who are rising stars in advocacy and academia. If you don’t have their names in your contact information, or know who they are, you should.
Thank goodness there will be much made of the passing of Dr. Height with services at the National Cathedral and with press editorials and statements from the White House and former U.S. presidents and national and world leaders. I will be pleasantly surprised if women are the dominant voices. Dr. Height may get her due in her passing, but what about the one thing that Dr. Height worked so hard to achieve? What about her work to lift women, especially black women into leadership roles? For those of us who knew her and loved her, the best thing that we can do is to is grab the hand of a young woman, especially those who are committed to social justice issues, look them in the eye and say, "Carry on!"
Cross-posted to ACSBlog and Huffington Post.
A Bittersweet Moment
originally posted by Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office for Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union [click here]
March 19, 2010 - 8:03 am
Posted in Uncategorized | No comments
(Originally posted on Huffington Post.)
Late on Wednesday evening, the U.S. Senate passed, by unanimous consent no less, a long-overdue bill that will help to reform one of the most egregious aspects of our nation’s criminal justice system — the staggering 100 to 1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. That we have arrived at this moment, less than a week after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 in support of the legislation, is a minor miracle that has taken years of advocacy to accomplish.
More than 23 years ago, at the height of public hysteria over the effects of crack cocaine and based on myths that have since been entirely debunked, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed into law, legislation that established the infamous 100 to 1 disparity. In the two decades that have followed, the disparity has resulted in gross racial inequality and contributed to skyrocketing incarceration rates of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, all while diverting precious resources away from effective measures, like prevention and treatment.
I helped to organize the first national conference on the devastating impacts the disparity was having on African-Americans in 1993. We have learned even more since then, and the case for eliminating the disparity has only grown stronger with the succeeding years. Shortly after Barack Obama became president in 2009, his Department of Justice, for the first time in its history, endorsed fully and completely eliminating the crack/powder sentencing disparity. Washington being Washington, however, nothing ever plays out as logic (and fundamental fairness) would seem to dictate, which is where my current bittersweet feelings come into play.
The Senate legislation, without question, takes important steps towards reforming one of the single worst aspects of the criminal justice system; however, it does not go as far as it should have. While the legislation will result in a reduction of the disparity, not to mention the first time since the Nixon administration that the Senate has voted to repeal a mandatory minimum, it leaves in place a sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine of 18 to 1.
This 18 to 1 disparity is not based at all on science showing differences between crack and powder cocaine (they are literally different forms of the exact same drug), but was instead a compromise reached to secure broad-based support from members of both political parties. It helped to ensure that senators would not have to cast a politically difficult vote in a charged election year climate. From a purely political standpoint, it could not have played out any better than it did for Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.
As a nonpartisan organization committed to a set of fundamental principles rooted in democracy, equality, liberty and justice, the ACLU approaches this issue from a different vantage point. We see a glaring injustice that is wholly unsupported by the facts and that has been crying out for reform for years. We, as an organization, have remained steadfast in our commitment to completely eliminating the disparity. It has always been the only just thing to do.
Now that the Senate has acted to pass a reform bill that falls short of our ideal, we must confront the reality that it will nonetheless make important improvements in the lives of many people who would have otherwise been locked away for years, or decades, on end. The House of Representatives should pass this legislation so that it will reach President Obama’s desk and become law. Its passage will not achieve sentence equalization but will at least shift momentum away from over-incarceration to a more reasonable sentencing policy — a bittersweet measure for justice.
Sen. Graham, You and What Army?
originally posted by Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office for Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union [click here]
March 10, 2010 - 10:06 am
Posted in Uncategorized | No comments
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a leading congressional proponent of using the discredited and fatally-flawed military commissions system to try the alleged planners and conspirators of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Sen. Graham feels so strongly that he has introduced legislation to bar the Justice Department from using any funds to try these cases — the most important terrorism trials in our country’s history — in our regular federal courts.
It is worth noting that these are the same federal courts that have successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases since the attacks of 9/11. In contrast, there have only been three successful prosecutions in the military commissions. Our federal criminal justice system has proven time and again that it is far more capable of resolving these cases quickly and with more credibility than the military commissions. Why would we want to entrust a case as important as that of the 9/11 defendants to such a flawed and unproven system when we already have something that works very well? More importantly, why is such a position considered "tough on terror"?
It has been reported in numerous press stories in recent days that Sen. Graham has been reaching out to the White House to urge them to reverse the November decision of Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 cases in our federal courts. In return, Sen. Graham has promised to secure the support of other congressional Republicans for the administration’s plans to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Sounds like a pretty tempting offer huh? The problem? Congressional Republicans, while also joining the call to urge military commissions trials of the 9/11 defendants, remain steadfast in their opposition to closing Gitmo.
In an article in Congressional Quarterly last weekend, the Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), stated —
I’m sure not going to horse-trade getting rid of one bad decision to let them make another bad decision.
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) added —
I hope that the Obama administration has finally recognized that military commissions are better equipped to handle the sensitive national security information that is part of terror trials. And I hope that next, they will realize that Guantánamo Bay is best equipped for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, not a prison inside the U.S.
An article in Tuesday’s New York Times by Charlie Savage and Scott Shane also points out that Sen. Graham is pretty much isolated and alone among congressional Republicans in being open to support a closure of Gitmo in return for trying the 9/11 cases before military commissions. Just last week, two of Sen. Graham’s closest friends and collaborators in the Senate, John McCain of Arizona and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, introduced legislation that would hand the government the power to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens, without charge or trial.
If it isn’t already, it should be ever clearer to the Obama administration that something is pretty rotten about this proposed "compromise" deal being floated by Sen. Graham. It seems pretty one-sided from my perspective.
The administration could do far better by honoring its commitment to the rule of law and getting justice for the families of those who died in the terror attacks of September 11 by pursuing these cases in our federal criminal courts. Overruling the decision of Attorney General Holder will open the administration to attacks of flip-flopping on a critical issue of national security. They should also continue to strongly oppose Sen. Graham’s legislation, which would tie the president’s hands in resolving these cases.
They need only look to the Savage/Shane article for support from some unlikely allies from (of all places) the Bush administration. Former Deputy National Security Adviser for Combating Terrorism (2005-2009), Juan C. Zarate, is quoted as saying —
We shouldn’t inadvertently handcuff ourselves by taking this tool [federal criminal trials] completely out of our tool kit.
Tell President Obama to support Attorney General Holder’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in federal criminal court. Anything less would be unjust, unlawful, and unwise.