Civil rights

  • August 6, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Mimi Marziani. Ms. Marziani is the Legal Director of Battleground Texas and teaches “Election Law and Policy” at University of Texas School of Law. All views are her own.

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium regarding the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    You may be tempted not to think too deeply about the Fifth Circuit’s decision yesterday, affirming that Texas’s photo ID law disparately burdens Black and Latino voters and thus violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps you just want to celebrate the result: that ‒ unless appellate review dictates otherwise ‒ Texas’s discriminatory law will be reformed. Or, maybe you are tired of hearing about Texas this week. On Monday, our attorney general, Ken Paxton, was indicated for securities fraud (oops) and on Tuesday, former governor Rick Perry failed to make the cut for the first GOP debate (famously, oops).

    But the Fifth Circuit’s opinion underscores truths about voting in Texas that, like the Lone Star State itself, cast an oversized shadow on election law and policy nationwide.

    To start: As the court recognizes, numerous empirical studies confirm that increasing the cost of voting decreases turnout. This is particularly true for low-income citizens who are, in the Fifth Circuit’s words, the “most cost sensitive.” The Texas photo ID law operates to impose severe burdens upon the poor, who are wildly less likely to have one of a few types of IDs that satisfy Texas’s law such as a driver’s license or passport, and cannot afford the necessary underlying documentation. As one voter put it during trial, before paying $42 for a birth certificate so she could get an ID, she had to weigh the significant costs to her family, explaining that “we couldn’t eat the birth certificate, and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.” Understandably, most people in that situation will not vote. The rent is too damn high.

    Moreover, as the Fifth Circuit detailed, due to historical discrimination, Black and Latino Texans are, on average, less likely to graduate from high school, more likely to be unemployed, and more likely to be in poor health. These factors lead to wide income gaps — 29 percent of Blacks and 33 percent of Latinos live below the poverty line, compared to just 12 percent of Anglos. This means that the ID law’s burdens on poor voters are disparately felt by communities of color.

  • August 5, 2015
    Guest Post

    by William R. Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government at American University Washington College of Law and a former acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium regarding the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    Access to the ballot should not be a partisan issue. Republicans, however, have teed up ballot access as a defining partisan issue. Just as this emphasis placed renewed pressure on our laws against racial discrimination, five justices fulfilled a longstanding conservative goal by disabling the requirement that states and localities with extensive histories of racial discrimination seek approval of voting changes from the federal government. Shelby County v. Holder lifted the preclearance requirement, unleashing jurisdictions to adopt photo ID laws, restrictive registration measures, shortened voting periods, and other measures that disproportionately restrict the opportunities for minority voters to cast ballots. Jurisdictions have concocted thoroughly debunked allegations of in-person voter fraud and unconvincing administrative cost justifications in support of these restrictions. As a last defense, they have sometimes conceded the partial truth – that these restrictions are designed to discourage Democrats from voting, as if that partisan purpose excuses their racial impact.

    How did we reach this point where electoral partisanship is so closely entangled with race? After all, the history of our nation is one of struggle to expand the franchise to incorporate once excluded segments of the electorate. We gradually and often painfully shed voting restrictions on non-property owners, the illiterate, women, and 18-to-20-year-olds. Twice we sought to guarantee the right to vote without regard to race – first through the Fifteenth Amendment and nearly a century later through the Voting Rights Act. The undeniable message of this progression is that the country gradually embraced the notion that every citizen of sufficient age, sound mind and (in too many states) non-felonious criminal record should be permitted to vote.

    Yet, partisan consequences already burdened the mind of President Lyndon Johnson when he signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, noting that he feared his signature would hand over the South to the Republican Party. Indeed, as Democrats nationally became the party of civil rights, the once Democratic leaders of segregated southern states turned to the Republican Party, whose presidential nominee in 1964, Barry Goldwater, had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Republican Party, led by Richard Nixon in 1968, saw political advantage in catering through its southern strategy to the backlash against the civil rights movement, Brown v. Bd. of Education and its progeny, and the civil rights laws of the 1960s.

  • August 5, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Gene Nichol, Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor, University of North Carolina School of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium regarding the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    In gutting what, for so many, had been the central enforcement mechanism of the iconic Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, famously, in the Shelby case, “Things have changed in the South . . . dramatically.” The “[n]ation has made great strides.” The Congress, in his view, had “failed to speak to current conditions.” Near unanimous votes in the House and Senate, reauthorizing the Act, had failed to perceive our present exalted attainment. Roberts and his four always-perceptive colleagues knew better. Black voting rights are secure here in Dixie. Bless his heart.

    Within hours of the announcement, Sen. Tom Apodaca, Republican Chairman of the Rules Committee in North Carolina, announced, correctly, that the floodgate had been opened. The already-ambitious voter suppression effort the General Assembly had been considering could, as a result, shoot for the stars. “Now we can go with the full bill,” he enthused. The “headache” of the Voting Rights Act was dispatched. The bill grew from 14 pages to 57. It added 48 new sections, running the gamut of innovative electoral constraint. The Brennan Center called it the “most restrictive since the Jim Crow era.” What Roberts said no longer occurs in the southland happened immediately, here and, of course, elsewhere. Perhaps the Chief Justice was surprised. I doubt it. Certainly no one in North Carolina was.

    North Carolina is 22 percent African American. Both houses of our General Assembly have massive, veto-proof Republican majorities. When they retreat to their respective caucuses to discuss and, effectively, to enact the laws that govern us, no black member is present. There aren’t any. So, in the last four years, as the legislature has racially gerrymandered our electoral districts, repealed a crucial Racial Justice Act, ushered in harsh voter ID requirements, kicked 500,000 people off Medicaid, passed the largest cut to a state unemployment compensation program in American history, and abolished the state’s earned income tax credit, no black voice, yea or nay, was offered. A white governor and an all white cabinet round out the picture. North Carolina is run by a white government. It is 2015.

  • July 29, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Michael Waterstone, J. Howard Ziemann Fellow and Professor of Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles 

    This week is the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, government programs and services, and privately owned places of accommodation.  It was and remains an ambitious law, requiring employers and business owners to make reasonable accommodations, at their own expense, to be more accessible to people with a wide range of disabilities.  And although there is still a long way to go, the ADA should be celebrated for its role in moving people with disabilities into the mainstream of society.

    Both the ADA and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (passed in 2008) passed with remarkable bipartisan support.  Disability has never entered the culture wars, and in many ways disability rights have transcended traditional political commitments.  But while legislative political elites in both parties have been very comfortable taking pro-disability rights positions, the public at large is less aware of and sometimes hostile to the ideals and goals of the disability rights movements.  Everyone likes and identifies with a feel good story about athletes who “overcome” disability.  But how many business owners have welcomed the idea of making physical or programmatic changes to accommodate difference?

    Although the ADA has a constitutional basis, it is primarily celebrated as a legislative success.  Lawyers and advocates who bring disability law cases are reluctant to engage constitutional law as a source of relief for people with disabilities.  And they have good reasons to be wary.  The ADA offers ample protections, moving deep into the private sphere in a way constitutional law could not.  And the doctrinal resting place of disability constitutional law is a bad one – under Cleburne, government classifications on the basis of disability are only entitled to rational basis scrutiny. Lawyers in the disability rights movement know how to count to five and have reasoned that the Supreme Court is an inhospitable place for equality claims generally.

    At this important milestone in the disability rights movement, I want to suggest that the next 25 years should include more of an engagement with disability constitutional law.  I take this position for several reasons.  First, there is a lot that is unclear, and potentially up for grabs, about equality law.  Cases like Windsor and Obergefell do not fit neatly into conventional tiered Equal Protection Clause analysis, instead looking at some mix of the nature of the interest protected and the legislative classification.  Simply accepting that Cleburne closed the constitutional canon on all disability claims does not sufficiently engage these evolving notions of equality.

  • July 17, 2015
    Video Interview

    by Paul Guequierre

    The LGBT rights movement has made extraordinary progress in just the past few years, let alone the past 11 years since Massachusetts became the first state to usher in marriage equality. Now, of course, marriage equality is the law of the land from sea to shining sea. Many people have put the rainbow flags away, thinking the fight for full equality is over. The reality is though, the fight is far from over.

    At the 2015 ACS National Convention, Janson Wu, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and the 2012 David Carliner Public Interest Award recipient, sat down and gave us his take on the progress the LGBT rights movement has made, where we’ve been, where we’re going and where we need to take the fight.

    “Now you can see what seemed an impossible victory in 2003 and now seeming almost inevitable in 2015 and I think that’s kind of the theme of our work going forward: what are those kind of impossible dreams we can think of right now that we can make inevitable in five, ten, fifteen years,” Wu said.

    In the interview, Wu also noted the role litigation plays in the LGBT rights movement, not only as a legal remedy to discrimination, but also as a tool to educate Americans.

    “Litigation is actually a great vehicle for education because what we know is that the public can understand and really sympathize with stories of harm. When you have litigation, you generally have a plaintiff who is harmed, so we always try to, when appropriate, use our plaintiffs as a way of educating.”

    After marriage equality, what are the issues the LGBT community faces? Where are the legal efforts in the movement taking place and where will they head in the future? View the full interview with Janson Wu below.