Liz Seaton

  • August 27, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Lawmakers may help push equality measures for LGBT persons, but at the end of the day if the state and federal courts are made up of rightwing jurists and those beholden to corporate interests, advancements toward equality will likely be an ongoing arduous and fitful slog.

    The health and safety of the LGBT community is “inextricably tied to the health and safety and vigor of our court systems, both federal and state,” said Justice at Stake’s Praveen Fernandes, at an Aug. 24 panel discussion at the National LGBT Bar Association’s 2012 Lavender Law gathering in Washington, D.C. Fernandes, the Director of Federal Affairs and Diversity Initiatives at Justice at Stake, noted that many people concentrate on the role federal courts occupy in legal battles, but that the “vast majority” of law is determined at the state level.

    And on the state level there is an increasing challenge to ensure that judges are independent of special interests. Thirty-nine states elect judges, and an increasing amount of money is flowing into those elections to elect judges inclined to advance corporate interests at the cost to individual rights. Several of the panelists participating in the “Defending the Courts: Why the LGBT Community Should be Particularly Concerned about the Strength and Independence of the Bench,” also noted that judges who uphold or bolster rights for the LGBT community are vulnerable to well-funded efforts to remove them from the bench.

    Judge Mary Celeste of the Denver County Court highlighted one of the more infamous efforts to punish judges who supported equality. 

    “We are talking about defending people who are supportive of LGBT issues. Now is anyone here not aware of what happened in Iowa,” Celeste said, referring to the successful effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were involved in a 2009 state court ruling that supported same-sex marriages. 

    The effort to oust the three Iowa Supreme Court justices was spearheaded by the American Family Association, a Christian lobbying group, and attracted $948.355 from out-of-state groups. In late 2010 former Arkansas Governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee applauded the effort to remove the Iowa Supreme Court justices, claiming that Iowans were “sick of one branch of government thinking it is more powerful than the other two put together,” the Iowa Independent reported.

  • October 8, 2009

    The Conference Report for the Defense Department Appropriations Reauthorization was released yesterday including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would classify violent crimes against LGBT victims as hate crimes. The Conference Report is the result of negotiations between the House of Representatives and Senate to reconcile legislation passed by each chamber. The reconciled bill must still garner majority support from each chamber before being sent to the president.

    Law Dork's Chris Geidner has the details on the Act:

    On page 1483 [of the pdf] (1361 of the bill), the penalties lay out a maximum of life imprisonment for the most severe types of hate-motivated crimes. They are when:
  • * death results from the offense.
  • * the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
  • The bill provides for no greater penalties.

    In an apparent effort to obstruct passage of the Hate Crimes Act earlier this year, Sen. Jeff Sessions amended the bill to allow capital punishment for hate crimes. Many backers of the Hate Crimes Act objected to the amendment, issuing statements like that from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which criticized capital punishment in light of "significant doubts about its deterrent effect and clear evidence of disproportionate application against poor people. Moreover, there are serious, well-documented concerns about unequal and racially biased application of the death penalty."

  • September 28, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Liz Seaton, Director of Projects and Managing Attorney, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)

    The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), (HR 3017) and (S 1584), is federal legislation intended to prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. This legislation, now pending in both chambers of Congress, is both critically needed and long overdue.

    Recently, the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on ENDA (pictures, testimony, and video are available here). The hearing featured witnesses who provided compelling testimony about the incidence and severity of discrimination, about the scope of the measure and its carefully drafted provisions, about the bill's relationship to existing federal law, the workplace non-discrimination policies in corporate America, and about the religious exemption in the bill.

    Their testimony clearly demonstrated both that discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the workplace is a serious problem that should be explicitly addressed in federal law, and that ENDA is a practical, workable solution that should be enacted into law to remedy the problem. The current patchwork of state and local laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is simply inadequate to remedy the widespread pattern of discrimination against U.S. workers on these bases.