Uncategorized
Family Values on Capitol Hill
originally posted by Ian Thompson, Washington Legislative Office for Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union [click here]
Mar 12th
Earlier this week, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act (H.R. 4806). This legislation would help to reduce the number of children languishing in state-run facilities by providing them with loving, permanent homes. It would do this by limiting federal funding to states that discriminate in adoption and foster care placements based on the potential parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.
It is estimated that at any given time, there are roughly 500,000 children in the child welfare system, with 125,000 waiting to be adopted. According to the Family Equality Council, there are approximately 1 million lesbian and gay parents raising about 2 million children across the United States.
This may help to explain why the nation’s leading child health and welfare organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Welfare League of America, have all expressed their strong support for allowing gay and lesbian couples or unmarried LGBT individuals to be adoptive or foster parents.
With such an obvious need for loving and supportive parents and homes, passing this legislation would seem like a no-brainer. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act is really, at its core, aimed at advancing child welfare by providing some of the most vulnerable members of society with a greater opportunity to attain the stability of a permanent home with loving parents.
On Thursday, the Family Equality Council and a number of other organizations hosted a briefing on Capitol Hill to help make the case for why the Every Child Deserves a Family Act is such a needed piece of legislation. The ACLU’s own Leslie Cooper discussed the current state of play with respect to litigation challenging state laws that deny children adoptive or foster placements with gay parents. In particular, she discussed ongoing ACLU lawsuits in Florida and Arkansas.
The star of the congressional briefing was, without question, ACLU client Martin Gill. Martin and his partner of 10 years have been raising two boys – brothers originally placed in their care through the Florida foster care system – for six years. Because of Florida’s law, which is the only one in the country to provide a blanket ban against adoption by LGBT individuals, they have been unable to formally adopt the boys. This is despite the fact that, after arriving to them in a state of neglect, they are thriving and very much a bonded, happy family. With the help of the ACLU, the Gill family has challenged Florida’s nonsensical law, which is so restrictive that it even prevents children in the foster care system from being placed with their own family member if those family members happen to be gay or lesbian. Far from valuing and protecting families, this law tears them apart.
It’s hard to put into a few short words how powerful Martin’s presentation was. It’s clear that Martin and his partner are very good dads, and for Florida to deny their children the security and permanence that would come from formal adoption is not only unfair, it is profoundly cruel. A state judge ruled last November that Florida’s law is unconstitutional because it both fails to promote children’s welfare and actually works against it by denying children good families. The case is currently working its way through the appeals process. Hopefully it won’t be too long before Martin and his partner can formally adopt their two boys.
Cooper also discussed the ACLU’s challenge in Arkansas to what is known simply as Act 1. Passed by voters in 2008, Act 1 bans adoption and fostering by anyone cohabitating with an unmarried partner. Among the plaintiffs in the challenge to Act 1 is Sheila Cole. Because of Act 1, Sheila was not permitted to adopt her own infant granddaughter who had been taken into state custody because of severe abuse by her parents. The reason the state is denying Sheila and her granddaughter the security that would come from adoption? Sheila lives with her same-sex partner and the child they are raising together. The challenge to Act 1 is scheduled to go to trial in May, so be sure to check back to aclu.org for frequent updates.
Listening to Martin at the briefing, I thought about the politicians who frequently like to pontificate on the floor of the House and Senate about family values and the need to protect families. Well, senators and representatives, there is now legislation before you in the Every Child Deserves a Family Act that aims to do just that. To those who like to talk about family values, I say it’s time to put your words into action. Show your support for family values by actually valuing families – all of them.
Arne Duncan to Investigate Civil Rights Failures in Schools
originally posted by Julianne Hing for RaceWire [click here]
Mar 12th
On Monday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a speech in Selma, Alabama–to coincide with the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday–announcing that the civil rights division of the Department of Education is going to start investigating civil rights transgressions in schools.
The Washington Post is reporting that the Office of Civil Rights is planning to conduct 38 so-called “compliance reviews” of more than three dozen issues. Duncan and the OCR’s assistant secretary, Russlynn Ali, acknowledged that civil rights infractions in schools had long gone unpunished. The OCR investigations are meant to determine whether policies are in place to protect students and what impact those policies have on students. Duncan announced that the investigations will focus on discrepancies in unfair disciplining of students of color, and racial disparities in college-prep course offerings in high schools.
Duncan showed he’s been doing his homework when he cited troubling statistics–that half the dropouts in the United States come from just twelve percent of high schools. But 75 percent of Black and Latino students come from those schools. That Black students without disabilities are three times as likely to be expelled as their white peers, and that Black students with disabilities are twice as likely to be expelled as their white counterparts.
The Wall Street Journal hinted that these investigations would eventually be used to enforce civil rights law among schools that receive federal funding, especially the highly coveted $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” money that is expected to go out to states soon.
All this is welcome news, to be sure. But it’s ironic that the same Arne Duncan who wants to defend kids of color and fairness in education also wants to reform schools by bolstering charter schools, a move widely seen as a further disinvestment of public education. Even though charter schools have achieved some serious (and legitimately fantastic) wins for students of color, they’re not the cure-all they’re sometimes credited as being.
Indeed, the UCLA Civil Rights Project recently declared charter schools a “civil rights failure.” Duncan’s also a big fan of the dramatic tactics that call for the total shutdown of struggling schools and mass firings of teachers. His plan for education reform also includes new teacher pay structures that link pay to performance, and new teacher evaluation methods that judge performance on students’ test scores.
But is this the kind of education reform kids need, or just the dismantling of public education? How exactly Duncan expects to hold schools accountable for enforcing civil rights law while he continues to tout education policy that doesn’t help the students of color who need it most is still uncertain.
After White House Meetings, What’s Next for Immigration Reform?
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Mar 12th
In the midst of trying to wrap up health care, President Obama carved time out of his schedule yesterday to meet with reformers and key Senators on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). After yesterday’s meetings, some are reporting that the President is again committed to moving CIR this year. Supporters of immigration reform are wary, but hopeful, that this time he means business.
Yesterday afternoon, the President met with leaders of grassroots immigration groups, unions, and faith communities for over an hour to discuss their demands for greater White House engagement on immigration reform, commitment to moving a bill this year, and to remembering that real people are hurting. They want evidence of real engagement in time for the huge gathering of immigration reform supporters in Washington on March 21. Many of these leaders were from organizations that soundly criticized the White House for a continued escalation in deportations at a press conference earlier this week.
The President also met with Senators Schumer and Graham to discuss their progress on putting together a bipartisan immigration reform bill. According to a statement released by Senator Schumer’s office, they asked the President to put his weight behind gathering more support in the Senate for the bill and in helping to nail down the details of the future flow component of the bill, an area where business and labor have been trying to find agreement.
Why the flurry of activity? As March 21 nears, there has been growing pressure on both the President and Senators Schumer and Graham to make good on last year’s promises to get immigration reform done sooner rather than later. A real show of progress is necessary to reassure tens of thousands of people who will gather on the mall that reform is imminent. Otherwise, the Administration and both parties are likely come under attack for failing to keep their promises. Politicians don’t like to hear that. As Bob Creamer writes in the Huffington Post, even many Republicans dread the negative publicity of continued inaction on immigration.
But before we get ahead of ourselves, we should recognize that getting legislation to the President’s desk is a long and complicated process of politics and policy—and the political is clearly the key component right now. For example, many are trying to extract the meaning of Senator Graham’s recent statement that immigration reform would be dead in the water if the White House pursued reconciliation to get healthcare reform passed. Since the Republican party as a whole has been threatening the collapse of the known world should reconciliation be used, this is probably just political posturing. But it could also be a convenient excuse to walk away from immigration reform, especially if no other Republicans are willing to come on board.
Assuming that reason prevails and immigration reform moves, turning the private framework into a public document is job one for the Senators. That, too, will lead to intense scrutiny from the left and the right, a call for more details, and lots of pressure to turn principles into legislation. Once you start fleshing out the details, you start risking internal and external disagreements on both the policy and the politics of immigration reform.
But, given the start and stop character of immigration reform over the last year, yesterday’s pronouncements also provide a new sense of momentum and hope. It demonstrates the growing scope and depth of the immigration reform movement. It shows that immigration reform is becoming a mainstream issue that has to be reckoned with. It also shows that real people can get through to our leaders if they bang the drum loud enough.
If yesterday’s events are accompanied by some concrete actions between now and the March 21, it is likely that the President and the Senators will reap the benefits of some public praise. If they are just empty promises, however, things could start to become uncomfortable come midterm elections.
Photo by Downing Street.
“ACLU Where Are You,” He Asked. Here We Are!
originally posted by Brandon Hensler, ACLU of Florida for Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union [click here]
Mar 12th
Last month, we told you about Wayne Weatherbee, a Clermont, Fla., businessman whose free speech rights were being quashed by city officials. Weatherbee erected 12 signs on his business property in October 2009 in political protest against the city, which he claims selectively enforced its laws against him and his business, including falsely arresting him. Beginning Tuesday, February 2, the city began imposing a $75/day fine on Bee’s Auto until the signs are removed or Weatherbee obtains a permit.
The ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on his behalf, and we stand tall and proud to report that ACLU attorneys secured a preliminary injunction in federal court yesterday, when a federal judge ruled from the bench that the city of Clermont is violating Mr. Weatherbee’s free speech rights.
"This is a clear victory for Mr. Weatherbee, and for free speech in Florida," said Maria Kayanan, ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director, after leaving today’s hearing. "When government tries to ride roughshod over free speech and protected political protest, the ACLU will answer the call to action to defend the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment."
Yesterday’s ruling found that the signs were clearly speech protected by the First Amendment, and the city had not been able to show any legitimate reason why it could prohibit them. So, Mr. Weatherbee will be allowed to continue displaying the signs on his property, and the city is prohibited from imposing fines against Bee’s Auto under the code. Meanwhile, the lawsuit will move forward as the ACLU attempts to permanently strike down the unconstitutional code.
"As the judge said, the relief she granted is extraordinary, under extraordinary circumstances, and in a unique case. This is proof that the little guy can still get a measure of justice in our great society," said Derek Brett, ACLU cooperating attorney.
It’s a sweet day for free speech in Central Florida. Someone pass the orange juice, we’ve still got more work to do…
A Tale of Two District Attorneys
originally posted by Natasha Minsker, Death Penalty Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California for Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union [click here]
Mar 12th
(A version of this post originally appeared on California Progress Report.)
Robertson County, Texas, November, 2000. A 24-year-old single mother of four, Regina Kelly, is caught up in a drug sweep triggered by the uncorroborated word of a single police informant. Even though Kelly has no prior drug record and no drugs were found on her or in her home, District Attorney John Paschall offers her one terrible choice: plead guilty to the charges and go home a convicted felon or remain in prison, fight the charges, jeopardize custody of her daughters and risk a long prison sentence for a crime she didn’t commit.
Compare Paschall’s approach to fighting crime with that of Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. Vance recently created a Conviction Integrity Unit in the district attorney’s office that uses DNA testing to either exonerate or confirm convictions of those now serving time in prison.
District attorneys hold one of the most powerful positions in our criminal justice system. They arguably have more control over the fates of the criminally accused than a judge or even a jury. District attorneys can invoke the power of the state to seek the death penalty or permanent imprisonment. At the other end of the spectrum, they can decline to prosecute a crime at all. They are supposed to serve as attorneys "for the people" and reflect the interests of all members of the community. They should prosecute the laws without prejudice, bias, or political purposes.
This June, of California’s 58 district attorneys, 56 are up for re-election. Yet as the March 12 filing deadline approaches, a mere 16 races seem to be contested. That makes 40 district attorney races with only one contender — hardly the makings of a real contest. And if elections aren’t real elections, then how do we keep district attorneys accountable to the people they serve?
Despite their awesome responsibility, incumbent district attorneys rarely face challengers. A recent study found that when incumbent district attorneys run, they win 59 percent of the time. Significantly, incumbent prosecutors aren’t even challenged in 85 percent of elections. Even when they have an opponent, they win 69 percent of the time.
In the small number of contested elections we see, incumbents and challengers rarely bring up key issues. They often rely on personal attacks and war stories, and their campaigns feature sensational accounts of high-profile cases instead of shedding light on policy differences. As a substitute for priorities and policies, we see dramatizations of popular cases and anecdotes. It is hard to find the full information needed to determine the better candidate.
Attention must be paid. District attorneys are no different than politicians. If they are not challenged or compelled to disclose their priorities and practices, the opportunity for abuse grows.
District attorneys must be held accountable for their decisions. Some accountability comes from the state bar, and judges enforce prosecutorial conduct in the courtroom. But true accountability must come from the public. Community members need meaningful opportunities to learn about an incumbent’s job performance and about the impact of his or her policy choices on community safety. That is why we ask district attorneys to run for office in the first place.
Some argue that district attorneys should not be elected at all. This would not be a bad idea. Ours is one of the only countries in the world with elected prosecutor positions, and the discretion held by district attorneys here is nearly unparalleled internationally. We may choose to change the rules of the game one day; but we need accountability now. As long as district attorneys remain elected officials, we must treat them as such. Elections should never go unnoticed, least of all when life-or-death decisions are on the line.
It’s not too late for Californians to get involved in our upcoming district attorney elections. More members of the community can opt to run for this key position. Short of that, we can also be a little more informed when we vote for district attorneys. At public forums we can ask tough questions for hard times like: Where will the district attorney’s office direct our limited criminal justice resources? Will he or she reduce or increase spending on corrections? What would a candidate do to minimize the risk of sentencing an innocent person to death?
The time is right to make these elections genuine contests instead acts of political theater. We have the chance to make district attorneys aware of local public values and concerns this coming June.
District attorneys have a really important job. Bringing district attorney contests into the full light of day, with genuine contenders and real issues, is the only way to ensure justice for all the people.
To stay informed on district attorney races in California this election year, join the Facebook group What a Difference a DA Makes, or follow #DA2010 on Twitter.
