May 2012

  • May 15, 2012

    by Nicole Flatow

    For farm workers, mistreatment of many types is all too common. But in a Florida town with a history of slavery, farmers and contractors are taking this abuse to shocking new levels, subjecting men to a modern-day form of coerced labor “that begins with indebtedness and sometimes doesn't end until a worker is dead,” according to the stories of workers reported by the Tampa Bay Times reports.

    In a sobering report, LeRoy Smith describes how he was coerced into coming to work for a farm where workers are kept in “an overcrowded bunkhouse full of elderly, drug-addicted black men and one decrepit bathroom.” The workers, many homeless, are picked up on the streets of nearby cities or from shelters, and taken to a “middle-of-nowhere camp” surrounded by potato fields and dirt roads, where workers are “paid” less than they are charged for food and housing, and told they are indebted to the farm, according to the newspaper.

    "The only reason there's no shackles is because now they make the people submit to the cocaine,” Smith told the newspaper. “That's what they use to basically control the people."

    One well-known contractor who employed these practices, Ron Evans, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2007 for luring homeless laborers to his camp, giving them drugs and keeping them in debt. But while the punishment was intended to send a message, laborers say other contractors who heard about Evans’ tactics after the raid are now copying his methods.  

    Smith and another man are suing contractor Ronald Uzzle, who refused to show the Tampa Bay Times reporter the laborers’ living quarters and has a history of Department of Labor investigations and injured worker incidents. Uzzle denied the recent allegations, and claimed he had never been sued, though the newspaper revealed that he has been a defendant in three previous labor and racketeering suits, all of which were settled with payouts from the defendants.

  • May 15, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    With an increasing number of states dispensing with or reconsidering capital punishment, the Columbia Human Rights Law Review (HRLR) has released an exhaustive issue, which should push more state lawmakers to join the discussion. The HRLR issue provides compelling and highly troubling documentation of the likely wrongful 1989 Texas execution of Carlos DeLuna.

    As Andrew Cohen writes for the Atlantic the HRLR’s issue, “an astonishing blend of narrative journalism, legal research, and gumshoe detective work,” should be read, especially by Justice Antonin Scalia, who in a 2006 concurrence staunchly defended the integrity of capital punishment cases, saying they are “given especially close scrutiny at every level ….”

    Since being reinstituted in the United States, Texas has executed more inmates than all other states, except for California and Florida, where the death row populations are higher. In the last five years, however, five states have chosen to abolish capital punishment, with Connecticut the most recent. Californians in November will consider a ballot measure to end the death penalty.

    HRLR’s issue called Los Tocayos Carlos, provides a stunning account of a criminal justice system gone terribly awry, with prosecutors, witnesses, judges all faltering in ways that tragically bungled a capital punishment case. While these officials and actors ignored evidence to the contrary, the likely perpetrator, Carlos Hernandez, continued a life of violent crime after DeLuna was convicted and sitting on death row.

    In a press release about the report, Columbia Law School Professor James Liebman, and lead author of the issue, said, “Carlos DeLuna’s execution passed with little notice. No one cared enough about the defendant or the victim [Wanda Lopez stabbed to death working at a convenience mart in Corpus Christi] to make sure they caught the right guy. Everything that could go wrong in a death penalty case did go wrong for DeLuna. Sadly, DeLuna’s story is not unique. The very same factors that sent DeLuna to his death – faulty eyewitness testimony, shoddy legal representation, prosecutorial misfeasance – continue to put innocent people at risk of execution today.”

  • May 15, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Obstructionism in Congress, as Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein argue in their new book, is largely, if not solely, born by Republicans. The obstructionism, which has, among other things, kept the number of vacancies on the federal bench consistently high, is finally prompting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rethink his opposition to reforming the filibuster, which has been the primary tool for Republican obstructionism in the Senate.

    The public interest group, Common Cause, has also gotten into the act by lodging a federal lawsuit against that the filibuster, which conservatives in the Senate have used in an unprecedented manner, helping to create a Congress where not much is accomplished. (The Tea Party and the nation’s super wealthy, of course, like it this way. Economic policy continues to exacerbate economic inequality and brain-addled Tea Party leaders believe the Constitution established a weak central government, though in reality they just long for the Articles of Confederation, which really did establish a weak central power.)

    Writing about the lawsuit for the Common Cause blog, Common Blog, Bob Edgar, the group’s president and CEO, who served 12 years in Congress, claims “ideological purists” in both parties have learned how to wield the filibuster to “pretty much shut the place down.” The filibuster he maintains is supposed to extend debate, not stop it.

    “Here’s how the obstructionists work,” he writes. “To begin debate on a bill, senators must first adopt a ‘motion to proceed.’ But debate on that motion, as on most everything else that comes before the Senate is unlimited unless at least 60 senators vote to end it. That means a minority of as few as 41 can block any action simply by refusing to permit a vote on the motion to proceed.”

    The group, representing members of Congress and children of undocumented immigrants who would have benefited from enactment of the DREAM Act, says the Constitution intends for the filibuster’s use in specific circumstances.

    Attorney Emmet J. Boundurant and Common Cause Staff Counsel Stephen Spaulding prepared and lodged the lawsuit. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein in a blog post about the constitutionality of the filibuster cites a 2011 article in which Boundurant explains his constitutional case against the filibuster. Klein also provides historical context for the filibuster, calling it a mistake. Klein cites Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison containing arguments against the use of a supermajority.  

  • May 14, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As the campaign continues to encourage supporters of the right-wing advocacy group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, better known as ALEC, to rethink their support of the group, The Huffington Post’s Dan Froomkin reveals the group’s efforts to help its members fend off pesky questions about its corporate backers.

    Froomkin says a memo, obtained by Common Cause, was sent to ALEC members essentially telling them to try and change the subject. “The model answers,” Froomkin writes, “provided by ALEC have the consistent theme of attempting to obscure the influence of its corporate members and to shift emphasis onto the role of legislators, whose dues comprise only 2 percent of the group’s budget, according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy.”

    For years ALEC has crafted model legislation for state lawmakers advancing interests of corporate America, as well as Religious Right outfits and the National Rifle Association, usually with little media notice. Bu that changed after Florida’s so-called “Stand Your Ground” law drew national coverage.

    Although ALEC has argued that laws, such as the Stand Your Ground Law, which garnered national attention after the killing of the Florida youngster Trayvon Martin, are wholly the product of state lawmakers, high-profile commentators have noted that the group and its work is funded largely by big corporations.

    In late March, Matt Gertz of Media Matters noted that the Florida law, which provides great legal protection to people who shoot others outside their homes, is “virtually identical to Section 1 of ALEC’s Castle Doctrine Act ….” 

    A coalition of groups, including ColorOfChange and CMD, has urged corporate sponsors to pay closer attention to the work of ALEC and to stop supporting it. More than a dozen corporations have severed ties with ALEC, including Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo., and Blue Cross Blue Shield. ColorOfChange recently announced that the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards has ceased support of ALEC.

  • May 14, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Melissa Rothstein, deputy director of the Equal Rights Center, and Megan K. Whyte, director of the Fair Housing Project at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. This is cross-posted at The Equal Rights Center’s blog.


    Fair Housing Month recently ended, and for most it was an opportunity to celebrate our country’s commitment to equal opportunity in housing for all people. Unfortunately, for some, it was instead another occasion for attacks on the crucial efforts to ensure enforcement of our country’s fair housing laws.

    In one such example, Congress launched an investigation into why the City of St. Paul withdrew an appeal in the Supreme Court that had the potential to eviscerate the validity of disparate impact challenges under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), despite the rulings of eleven federal circuit courts of appeal that uniformly held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. In another example, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested that, if elected president, he would consider disbanding the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an agency for which his father once served as Secretary.

    These actions come on the heels of a disturbing trend by federal courts of imposing additional hurdles on fair housing plaintiffs. Even in the face of efforts to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to enforce their statutory rights, the continuing role of fair housing organizations in enforcing the provisions of the FHA cannot be overstated. Private fair housing organizations and other civil rights groups investigate two out of every three fair housing complaints filed across the country – and their ability to enforce fair housing violations is critical to the promise of equal housing opportunity for all. These organizations are able to conduct investigations efficiently and effectively with little of the bureaucracy and overhead costs that may be associated with governmental agencies, and to gain the trust of disenfranchised community members who may not feel comfortable lodging a complaint with a government entity. 

    Officials at HUD and DOJ – the federal agencies with authority to enforce the FHA – recognize the importance and value of private enforcement, as they lack the resources to effectively enforce the FHA on their own. As detailed in our recent American Constitution Society Issue Brief, Congress intended for private enforcement to be a key component of ensuring FHA compliance, and the 1988 FHA amendments were largely intended to amend the law’s enforcement mechanism so that, in Senator Kennedy’s words, it would no longer be “a toothless tiger.”