The Public Policy Project - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - News Feed

Lawyers' Committee Testifies Before Maryland Senate on Deceptive Practices

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

On Wednesday, February 16th, Voting Rights Project Co-Director Marcia Johnson Blanco delivered the following testimony before the Maryland State Senate Committee on Education, Health and Environmental Affairs regarding the State's proposed Voters' Rights Protection Act:

My name is Marcia Johnson-Blanco, and I am the co-Director of the Voting Rights Project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. I am pleased to be here with you today to talk about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act of 2012. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The mission of the Lawyers’ Committee is to secure – through the law – equal justice under law by marshaling the pro bono resources of the bar for litigation, public policy advocacy, and other forms of services by lawyers to the cause of civil rights. Central to the mission of our organization is ensuring that the right to vote is unimpeded and that all eligible Americans are able to freely exercise this most fundamental right.

Unfortunately, almost fifty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, historically disenfranchised voters continue to be targets of deceptive practices aimed at keeping them from exercising their right to vote. These fraudulent acts include the dissemination of false or misleading information about voter qualifications, false information about the time, place, or manner of voting, and threats to voters at a polling place itself. These suppressive tactics have become more sophisticated and nuanced employing modern technology to target certain voters and skew election results. Targeted voters – predominantly minorities, elderly, student voters, low-income, and individuals with disabilities – continue to be affected by those who wish to intimidate these voters or trick them into not voting. These practices remain all too common in modern American elections. The result: eligible voters are prevented from casting a ballot and election outcomes are affected.

Conduct that intentionally impedes, hinders, or prevents an individual from casting his or her vote on Election Day is unconscionable. It is essential that laws are in place which prevent, punish, and deter the sort of voter manipulation and deception we have uncovered during our leadership in the Election Protection Coalition. The Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee spearheads the national Election Protection Coalition, the largest non-partisan voter protection program in the country. It organizes a comprehensive and proactive campaign to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast a meaningful ballot both through an assistance hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE, the nation’s largest voter services hotline, and through field programs in 20 states including Maryland. The Election Protection Legal Committees (EPLCs) organizing our field programs meet with election officials, provides support to the civic participation activities of non-partisan grassroots organizations, and creates valuable voter education and voter protection materials and resources.

Since the inception of the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hotline, volunteers have responded to over 500,000 calls from voters across the country, including over 240,000 during the 2008 election cycle. Information from calls into the hotline and reports collected at the polling place are logged into www.ourvotelive.org, the coalition’s web based database. The stories that make up over 100,000 reports in our database paint the most complete picture available of the American voting experience from the perspective of the voter. This leadership has provided us with detailed knowledge of the problems voters face across the country, and it is that experience that I will draw from in my testimony today. The following are real examples of the type of deceptive practices that voters have encountered in recent elections:–

Men in official attire asking voters for identification. In 2003, men with clipboards bearing official-looking insignias driving cars with decals resembling those of federal agencies were dispatched in black neighborhoods in Philadelphia to ask voters for identification. In a post-election poll of 1000 African-American voters, seven percent had encountered such efforts.
Bogus election regulation fliers. During the 2004 elections, flyers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin purportedly from the “Milwaukee Black Voters League” were distributed in minority neighborhoods claiming, “If you’ve already voted in any election this year, you can’t vote in the presidential election; If anybody in your family has ever been found guilty of anything, you can’t vote in the presidential election; If you violate any of these laws, you can get ten years in prison and your children will get taken away from you.”
Fliers advertising the wrong election date. In 2008 flyers purporting to be from the Virginia State Board of Election were distributed in the southern part of the state as well as on the campus of George Mason University falsely stating that, due to larger than expected turnout, “[a]ll Republican party supporters and independent voters supporting Republican candidates shall vote on November 4th…All Democratic party supporters and independent voters supporting Democratic candidates shall vote on November 5^th.”
Deceptive online messages. In 2008 an email was circulated at 1:16am on Election Day to students and staff at George Mason University, purportedly from Provost Peter Stearns, misinforming them that the election had been postponed until Wednesday. Later, Stearns sent an email that his account had been hacked and informing students the election would take place that day as planned.
Facebook messages. A pastor at a church in Walnut MS, posted false information on his Facebook page in 2011 stating, “I just heard a public service announcement. Because of amendment 26 [the Mississippi Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Amendment] and the anticipation of a record turnout, the Secretary of State’s office has had to devise a plan as to how to handle the record numbers. The Secretary of State office just announced that if you are voting YES on Ms26, then you are to vote on Tuesday Nov 8th. If you are voting NO on Ms26, then they ask that you wait until Wednesday Nov 9th to cast your vote.”
Videotaping voters at polling places. In 2010, an assigned Republican poll watcher in Pima County, Arizona videotaped voters inside a polling location and became confrontational with an Election Protection volunteer who attempted to follow up on voter complaints. Election Protection contacted the police and the Secretary of State’s office. After several hours, the Secretary of State eventually ordered the removal of the poll watcher.
Deceptive phone calls to voters. As you are no doubt aware, during Election Day in 2010, targeted minority households in Maryland received recorded calls stating, "Hello. I’m calling to let everyone know that Governor O’Malley and President Obama have been successful. Our goals have been met. The polls were correct, and we took it back. We’re okay. Relax. Everything’s fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight. Congratulations, and thank you." It was later discovered that these calls were paid for by aides to the Ehrlich campaign in the gubernatorial contest.

Deceptive practices take many different forms, and it is essential that reform efforts take into account the different ways deceptive practices can manifest to deceive or confuse voters and keep them from casting their ballots. Laws prohibiting deceptive practices must be broad enough to encompass the many techniques and means that may be employed to disseminate false election information or to intimidate voters.

It is noteworthy that one of the perpetrators of the deceptive phone calls in this state was convicted under the existing election laws of Maryland. That is a strong testament to the commitment of this legislature to enacting laws that meaningfully protect voters from fraudulent election practices and of the Attorney Generally in the vigorous prosecution of those laws. However, deceptive practices take many different forms and it is essential that the laws take into account the various ways individuals use false election information to deceive or confuse voters. That is why we believe that, in addition to the statute used to convict in the aforementioned case – which prohibits the use of fraud to influence a voter’s decision of whether or not to go to the polls – Maryland law should be crafted in a way that protects voters against the specific conduct at issue, which can be subtle and sometimes sophisticated in the way false information is used to confuse or intimidate voters.

Sometimes such acts may not necessarily rise to the level of fraud under Maryland law, and other times such acts may not influence a voter’s decision of whether or not to go to the polls. Unfortunately, such conduct may still intend to mislead voters and prevent them from voting. For example, providing false information about polling place locations or false candidate endorsements may result in the voter not voting for the candidate of his or her choice.

The Lawyers’ Committee is supportive of the goals of the Voter's Rights Protection Act, but we believe that the Act could be even more effective in combating deceptive practices if additional provisions were added to the law expanding the scope of conduct that is prohibited. We recommend the following additional protections:

An additional prohibition making it unlawful, within 90 days before an election, to intentionally communicate or cause to be communicated by any means (including written, electronic, or telephonic communications) materially false information regarding the time, place, or manner of an election, or the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility (including any criminal penalties associated with voting or voter registration status) for any such election with the intent to prevent a voter from exercising the right to vote in such election, when the person knows such information is false.
An additional prohibition making it unlawful, within 90 days before an election, to make to the public, or cause to be made to the public, a materially false statement about an endorsement if such person intends to mislead any voter and knows that the statement is false.

Extending the scope of prohibited activity to false communications about time, place, and manner of elections and voter qualifications targets the type of conduct we’ve seen Maryland and elsewhere such as misleading robocalls, flyers, fake candidate endorsements, and other types of messaging devices that are intended to suppress or confuse voters. Also, an effective law should extend to the different ways that false information can be communicated – such as written, electronic, and telephonic.

We also believe that any reform should include effective enforcement mechanisms. These are absolutely critical to protect voters and to provide meaningful remedies. These should include the following:

Directing the appropriate state agency to take corrective action by providing affected voters or communities of voters with correct election information.
Providing a private right of action so victims can seek redress immediately and provide a defense and deterrence against deceptive practices.

It is also imperative that there are strong mechanisms for enforcement and remedy. That is why we support the inclusion of a private right of action, so that aggrieved voters can hold the perpetrators of these election crimes responsible. We also strongly support the ability of the appropriate law enforcement authority to take corrective action so that voters affected by deceptive practices are given accurate election information. While instituting civil and criminal penalties is necessary to deter and prevent deceptive voter practices, there must also be an immediate remedy available to voters in which accurate election information is provided so that they are actually able to freely cast their ballot in the election.

Every Maryland voter has the right to a free and fair democratic process. Deceptive voter practices have no place in Maryland elections and should be outlawed. The Voter’s Rights Protection Act is a step in the right direction. We believe the bill would be strengthened if these additional reforms are adopted.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here before you today. I am available for any questions.

To download a .pdf version of Marcia's testimony, please click here.

To learn more about the Election Protection Coalition, please click here.

Deceptive Voter Practices Cannot Be Tolerated

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0600

U.S. Senator Ben Cardin and U.S. Senator Charles Schumer are reintroducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011, which would protect voters across the nation from unscrupulous partisans attempting to prevent citizens from voting through deception or intimidation.

Most often, this takes the form of a misleading flyer or robocall telling voters from one party to vote on the correct day, and voters from another party to vote the day afterward. Although such practices are against the law in a handful of states, the proposed bill would make it a serious crime in all states, allowing for penalties of up to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment.

A variety of recent incidents have inspired the Senators to re-introduce the bill, including several high-profile stories surrounding misleading robocalls in Maryland in 2010, the intentional release of incorrect information about election dates and polling place locations, as well as false suggestions that any voter with an outstanding parking ticket would be arrested if they attempted to vote.

Such incidents are not pranks, they threaten the very core of our democracy. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act would make anyone think twice before considering suppress individual voters and even entire communities.

Read the full TheBaynet.com article

Racial Integration and Educational Quality

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0600

...Integrating schools is one of the best ways to bring educational excellence and equity to children of all racial and economic backgrounds. Studies show superior academic achievement by African American and Latino children educated in racially diverse schools and students of all backgrounds in integrated schools develop more positive attitudes and relationships with members of other races. Research also shows that non-minority students benefit from diverse and integrated learning environments.

New recent federal guidance documents, issued jointly by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, provide K-12 schools and universities with the information and tools they need to leverage diversity to achieve educational excellence for all children. The guidance documents highlight the benefits of school diversity and outline constitutional approaches for public school districts, colleges and universities to voluntarily pursue racial integration and diversity.

The federal guidance documents – Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schoolsand Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Post-Secondary Education – correct the Bush Administration’s guidance, which recommended schools not consider race at all in student assignment planning.

The Lawyers’ Committee agrees with the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice Departments and the majority of the Supreme Court which stated, our “nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.” Most major corporations, the military and other institutions have embraced diversity because they recognize that they can leverage a mosaic of talent and perspective to enhance their entire workforce and become more competitive. It is time that our schools do the same, to prepare all children to thrive in our increasingly diverse society and global economy....

To read the op-ed in full, please click here.

DOJ and DOE Issue Guidance on Diversity Policies in Educational Institutions

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0600

Today, the United States Department of Education and the United States Department of Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can lawfully pursue voluntary policies to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and current case law. The new guidance documents review three key Supreme Court rulings on the use of race by educational institutions, and provide examples of options that schools and postsecondary institutions may wish to consider in structuring programs that lawfully further diversity or reduce racial isolation. The guidance is presented in two documents, one for elementary and secondary schools and the other for postsecondary institutions.

The guidance can be found here.

Barbara Arnwine Speaks at House Democrats' Forum on State Voting Laws

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0600

"The right to vote and choose our leaders is at the heart of what it means to be American and participate in our democracy. Right now, state legislatures are actively trying to make it harder for certain segments of our citizenry to vote and have their voices heard. By quickly passing laws requiring photo voter identification that are a solution in search of a problem, state lawmakers are actively ignoring the real problems that plague our voting system and threatening the fundamental right to vote for many eligible voters. In addition to requiring photo voter identification, states are drastically reducing early and absentee voting days, attacking election day registration, putting onerous restrictions on groups attempting to register voters, and enacting other restrictive measures."

On November 14, 2011, Barbara Arnwine shared these sentiments and more as she delivered oral and written testimony before the House Democrats' panel on the impact of recent voter ID laws.

To view the panel discussion, please click here.

To read Ms. Arnwine's testimony in full, please click here.

Lawyers' Committee and Coalition Partners Withhold Support for ESEA Proposal

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0600

In advance of today’s Senate HELP Committee Hearing on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2011, a bipartisan coalition of 29 civil rights groups, business associations, statewide education officials, and education advocates withholding support for the bill due to the absence of accountability measures continues to grow and now includes the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, StudentsFirst, the United Negro College Fund, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the Advocacy Institute, the Children’s Defense Fund, Public Advocates, and the Center for Law and Education.

Click here for a PDF of their joint statement

Lawyers' Committee Urges Continued Funding for Election Assistance Commission

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0500

On November 4th, the Lawyers' Committee sent a letter to Senate Majority Leater Harry Reid, urgin him to oppose any efforts to eliminate funding for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

The Lawyers' Committee strongly believes that abolishing the EAC would fail to further the principles of voting transparency and reliability that were at the heart of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Furthermore, with the 2012 Presidential Election season already well underway, the Committee hopes that Congress focuses its efforts on enhancing institutions with primary responsibility for enforcement of voting rights enforcement - not on undermining their existence.

To read the Lawyers' Committee's letter to Senator Reid, please click here.

Lawyers' Committee's Tanya Clay House Speaks at Congressional Briefing on New H-2B Guestworker Rule

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0500

On October 21, 2011, immigration, labor and civil rights experts gathered for a congressional briefing on the final wage rule issued by the Department of Labor which raised wages for seasonal migrant workers under the H-2B guestworker program to “prevailing wages” for those industries. The briefing highlighted the great benefit of the rule, which reinstates fair wages for all workers and protects jobs in communities across the nation. Speakers at the briefing also warned that any further delay in implementation of the rule would harm both U.S. and migrant workers. The wage increases were to go into effect on September 30, 2011, but were postponed until November 30 as a result of legal challenges. Most recently, an appropriations bill signed into law further delayed implementation by prohibiting the use of funds to implement the wage increases prior to January 1, 2012.

Lawyers’ Committee Public Policy Director Tanya Clay House spoke at the congressional briefing, noting that “as unemployment rates remain high for African-Americans and Latinos across all ages, the implementation of this wage rule has become a civil rights and human rights issue. The new H-2B wage rule is so important for creating jobs for U.S. workers and treating H-2B guestworkers fairly.” In addition, Clay House expressed concern that further postponement of the new wage rule would undermine current efforts to ensure fairness in the workplace.

Beyond its policy advocacy, the Lawyers’ Committee’s also provides litigation support in two ongoing lawsuits related to the development of the new wage rule: (1) Louisiana Forestry Association, Inc., v. Solis filed in the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria division, on September 7, 2011, and (2) Bayou Lawn & Landscape Services v. Solis filed in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, on September 21, 2011. Both Bayou v. Solis and Louisiana Forestry Association v. Solis seek to circumvent the court order in CATA v. Solis which ordered the Department of Labor to promulgate new rules concerning the calculation of the prevailing wage rate. The Department of Labor responded by releasing new rules which would increase the wages to H-2B workers and U.S. workers employed alongside them. Because of the benefits to all workers and to workplace equality, the Lawyers’ Committee is in full support of the new wage rule.

To read the Lawyers’ Committee’s letter in support of DOL’s H-2B program wage rule, click here.

To read the AFL-CIO’s press release on the congressional briefing, click here.

Lawyers' Committee and Partners Say "Don't Let Congress Turn Back the Clock on Teacher Quality"

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Congress is debating this week whether to turn back the clock on advances for our most vulnerable students that were part of the legacy of No Child Left Behind. At stake as part of the debate is whether our legislators believe teachers should be required to complete a minimum level of training and demonstrate competence before they enter the classroom -- and especially whether poor and minority students, English language learners, and students with disabilities deserve equal access to such well-qualified teachers.

To provide some history, for years advocates and reformers have been pointing to the large achievement gap between black and Latino students and their white and more affluent peers, which has stayed stubbornly large since the Reagan reforms wiped out the educational investments and anti-poverty programs that had caused it to shrink significantly in the 1970s. In addition to the effects of growing childhood poverty and lack of health care, this gap has been exacerbated by a system that spends less on the schools that serve poor children and that frequently offers them the least qualified teachers and principals. Beginning in the late 1980s, as dwindling and unequal salaries caused growing teacher shortages in poor districts, states were encouraged to lower standards for entering teaching in these communities rather than increasing salaries or improving working conditions. In California, nearly 50% of the state's new teachers entered without training, virtually all of them assigned to teach in high-need schools. By the 1990s, it became common in some states for segregated schools serving high-need students in urban and rural areas to be staffed by a revolving door of inexperienced and untrained teachers.

This is one of the problems that NCLB tried to solve when it called for highly qualified teachers in all schools. States and districts were required to put in place recruitment and retention plans to ensure that schools could be staffed by teachers who knew their subject matter and how to teach it. Many states proved that they could greatly reduce teacher attrition and the need for emergency hires by equalizing salaries between rich and poor districts, offering scholarships to attract candidates to high-need fields and locations, and improving mentoring for beginners. For example, North Carolina's Teaching Fellows program paid for the preparation of hundreds of talented candidates who pledged to teach for 4 years in the state's schools, bringing long-term talent into the education system to teach math, science, and other critical subjects. Other successful examples include the teacher residency model and 'grow your own' programs, where teachers are fully trained and prepared with the tools they need to be effective in the classroom and provided the support they need to stay.

But the Bush administration responded to recalcitrance from some by watering down the law to allow teachers who had just begun training in alternate routes to be called "highly qualified" even though they had minimal to no training and had met no standards of teaching competence. This encouraged the ongoing concentration of untrained novices in schools serving the neediest students, without public accountability or any requirements to solve the underlying problem. In California, for example, more than 2/3 of interns teach in highly segregated schools that serve more than 75% minority students, and more than 50% seek special education credentials.

When low-income and minority parents and students sued the federal government to challenge this administrative interpretation and won, their victory was short-lived. Within a few weeks and with no public notice or debate, Congress last year enacted an amendment -- its sole amendment to NCLB in the ten-year history of the law -- to write the unlawful Bush-era regulation into statute. In so doing, Congress labeled teachers-in-training in alternative route programs as "highly qualified," condoned their disproportionate concentration in low-income, high-minority schools, and permitted states and districts to hide these facts from parents and the public.

The Harkin/Enzi bill builds this troubling amendment into the fabric of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill. While the bill maintains NCLB's "highly qualified teacher" terminology, its definition of the term to include teachers-in-training sets a standard so low as to make the phrase virtually meaningless and its protections for at-risk students nearly nonexistent. Even more troubling, the bill's "highly qualified teacher" standard applies only to teachers in their first year or so, after which the bill abandons teacher qualifications to focus on teacher evaluation results in states that have implemented evaluation systems.

Some would say that the new provisions for evaluation systems make any attention to teachers' initial qualifications unnecessary. But this "effectiveness only" approach ignores the reality that states' evaluation systems won't be up and running for at least a few years, and, once implemented, will require a few years of classroom data from which to determine an individual teacher's effectiveness. (We put aside, for the moment, whether the teacher evaluation standards set forth in the bill will result in valid and reliable measures of teacher effectiveness and incentivize quality teaching.)

The Harkin/Enzi proposal will allow untrained teachers to teach for years before their effectiveness is ever measured. We think that's unacceptable. Students deserve teachers who are both fully-trained to teach on their first day in the classroom and, if they stay, who prove themselves effective at educating children. In the words of Candice Johnson, a student in South-Central Los Angeles who experienced first hand the effects of this misguided federal policy and visited Congress last spring to demand it be changed: "Why is it OK for students like me to be taught by teachers-in-training? If intern teachers are good enough for me, why aren't they good enough for the students down the road in Beverly Hills?"

Congress cannot pretend that it really cares about closing the achievement gap or providing equal opportunities to learn if it refuses to address the most fundamental right -- the basis on which all high-achieving countries have built their successful systems: the right of every child to have a fully-prepared and qualified teacher who knows how to teach their subject matter effectively, and is expected to do so.

Fortunately, there's still time for Congress to do the right thing. When the ESEA is marked up in committee this Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will offer amendments to strengthen the definition of highly qualified teacher and end the practice of congregating the least prepared teachers in the highest need schools. The Sanders amendments will also require that, where untrained teachers are hired to fill shortages, they be adequately supervised and that parents be notified when their child is being taught by such a teacher. The amendment has the support of a coalition of 82 organizations -- including ours.

Let's hope Congress corrects the mistake it made last year and finally fulfills the promise to provide all students -- and especially poor and minority students, English language learners, and students with disabilities -- with qualified and effective teachers. Our future depends on it.

Deborah A. Ziegler, Associate Executive Director, Council for Exceptional Children
Susan Henderson, Executive Director, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens
Claude Mayberry, President, National Council on Educating Black Children
Wendy D. Pureifoy, President and CEO, Public Education Network
John Affeldt, Managing Attorney, Public Advocates Inc.
Robert Mahaffey, Director of Communications, Rural School and Community Trust

To read the piece as it appeared on the Huffington Post, please click here.

Lawyers' Committee and Partners Call for TransUnion to Stop Promoting and Selling Employment Credit Reports

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0500

On Tuesday, October 11th, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law joined with 24 other advocacy organizations in sending a letter calling for TransUnion to halt the sale and promotion of employment credit checks. The groups' action was prompted by TransUnion's efforts to lead the credit reporting industry in fighting state legislation that would restrict the ability of employers to check credit of job applicants.

With 60 percent of employers are currently utilizing credit checks in their hiring processes, the Lawyers' Committee firmly believes that such policies have a discriminatory impact on racial minorities. Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee has said that "barriers [such as those imposed by employment credit checks] are a contributing factor to the drastic unemployment numbers we see for people of color... [and they] are often used as disguises for other kinds of racial bias."

As a whole, the 25 groups that are signatories to the letter sent to TransUnion contend that credit check policies in the employment context not only have a negative effect on racial minorities, but that they also harm women, recent immigrants, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. At a time when Americans need jobs more than ever, a poor credit history due to a layoff, divorce, or medical bill can unfairly keep otherwise qualified applicants out of employment.

To read the sign-on letter that the groups sent to TransUnion, please click here.

Celebrating Hispanic Heritage in the U.S.

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0500

National Hispanic Heritage Month, observed from September 15 to October 15, is an opportunity to officially celebrate the numerous outstanding contributions of the Latino community in the United States and to bring light to issues of importance to the advancement of racial justice and equality. The national observation began in 1968 under President Lyndon Johnson and was expanded under President Ronald Reagan in 1988.

Latinos have a longstanding legacy in the United States, with roots that stretch deep into the history of the land. Today, Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the United States, constituting 16 percent of the total U.S. population and accounting for most of the nation’s growth in the past decade.[1] In 2050, the Latino community is projected to comprise 29 percent of the total U.S. population.[2]

The Latino community, racially and culturally diverse within itself, greatly contributes to the rich social and cultural fabric our nation. Historically, Latinos have been fundamental to our economic strength, they have proudly served in the military and public office, and contributed to the performing arts, literature, sports, science, and technology, to name a few fields. Some of the prominent Latino leaders include legendary labor activists and civil rights leaders Cesar Chávez and Dolores Huerta, who founded the United Farm Workers in 1965; Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a self-described “Nuyorican,” who in 2009 became the first justice of Hispanic heritage and the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States; Hilda Solis, the current United States Secretary of Labor; Eliseo Medina, International Secretary-Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union; and Sylvia Mendez, human rights activist and recipient of the 2010 Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

However, despite its achievements and growing influence, the Latino community continues to face great advancement challenges. Latinos experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment, barriers to employment and educational opportunities, mass incarceration, housing segregation, racial profiling, political suppression, and hostilities based on anti-immigrant campaigns.

At the Lawyers’ Committee, we reaffirm our commitment to the Latino community through the implementation of programs and initiatives such as the Immigrant Rights Initiative, the Parental Readiness and Empowerment Program, and the Delmarva Migrant Justice Program. Over the years, the Lawyers’ Committee has advocated on behalf of Latino and immigrant populations by engaging in activities such as litigation to protect the right to vote on behalf of recently naturalized citizens, policy work in support of the DREAM Act, amicus work in response to anti-immigration legislation, and by educating Latino parents on their rights with regards to their children’s education. The Lawyers’ Committee’s dedication to the Latino community stems from our core mission to represent the interests of racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all.

Ensuring that Latinos enjoy equality of opportunity, and equal protection under the law in fair housing, employment, education, voting and public health and safety is integral to the overall success of our country. With that in mind, we celebrate the accomplishments and contributions of the Latino community and we continue to work to vigorously combat racial discrimination.

[1] Ennis, S., Ríos-Vargas, M., Albert, N., (May 2011).The Hispanic Population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf; Pew Hispanic Center, (March 24, 2011). Census 2010: 50 Million Latinos Hispanics Account for More Than Half of Nation’s Growth in Past Decade. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf

[2] Passel, J., Cohn, D. (Feb. 11 2008). U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf

Assault on Voting Rights Panel This Thursday

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0500

This Thursday, the Lawyers' Committee is hosting an exciting panel discussion exploring how we can best fight back against the current assault on voting rights at 10 a.m. at Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth Street NW, Washington DC 20004. It promises to be a powerful conversation that will help to define the fight for voters' rights as we head not the 2012 elections. To RSVP, send an email to info@lawyerscommittee.org.

The discussion will be moderated by Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a founding leader of the Election Protection coalition. Joining Barbara on the panel will be:

Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Melanie Campbell, President and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
Mark Schneider, Associate General Counsel, SEIU
Wendy Weiser, Director, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Deborah Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Office

The current assault on voting rights is far from over. Reversing the trend will require a comprehensive year-round campaign joined by all those who work to ensure full participation in our democracy that includes: voter education and empowerment, changing the narrative about the problems plaguing our system of elections and real solutions that will expand access to voting, and where possible challenging these harmful laws in court, and Election Protection.

Join us for our action oriented panel discussion on the assault on voting rights. Learn what you can do now in your communities and nationally to help protect the fundamental right to vote for millions of Americans.

The event will be held on Thursday, September 8th at 10am at Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth Street NW, Washington DC 20004. Admission is FREE and open to the public. To RSVP for this event, send an email to info@lawyerscommittee.org

If you can't make it to our panel in person, the full video and key highlights will be made available on our websites, www.lawyerscommittee.org and www.866OurVote.org

Lawyers' Committee Encourages EEOC Vigilance in Battle Against Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Background Checks

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0500

On July 26, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) conviened for a hearing on enforcement of title VII as it relates to background checks of Job Applicants. For this event, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law submitted testimony relaying critical information on the subject to the Commission.

In its testimony, the Lawyers' Committee's Employment Discrimination and Public Policy Projects encouraged the EEOC to "continue its vigilance in litigating [criminal check] cases and partnering with the private plaintiffs' bar in appropriate cases challenging overbroad and non-legitimate use of criminal background checks as a screen for employment" and made the case that the "issue of employer misuse of criminal background checks is crucial to the efforts to reduce employment disparities for minorities and to enhance the economic well-being of minority families and of our nation as a whole."

To read the Lawyers' Committee's written testimony in its entirety, please click here.

For more information on our efforts to combat employment discrimination on the basis of both criminal and credit background checks, please click here and here.

Educational Opportunities and Public Policy Projects Express Support for "The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Act (S. 919)"

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0500

On July 7th, the Lawyers' Committee's Educational Opportunities and Public Policy Projects joined the Dignity in Schools Coalition's letter of support to Chairman Harkin on The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Act (S. 919).

"The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Act (SSHSA) provides a smarter, cost-effective approach for supporting the health and success of students and schools. Like current provisions in Title IV of the ESEA, the SSHSA will provide funding for efforts to promote physical and mental health, address bullying and harassment through preventive and positive practices, counter school violence and drug-use, and improve school climate through school-wide approaches like Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and restorative practices. Unlike current law, the SSHSA will better target these funds to the demonstrated needs of schools and districts. The SSHSA will provide parents, educators, and policymakers the data they need to identify and address issues unique to each district while encouraging greater collaboration between schools and communities to ensure all students are successful, safe, and healthy."

To read the letter in full, please click here.

To read the text of the bill, please click here.

Lawyers' Committee Submits Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee for their Hearing on "Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior"

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0500

The Public Policy Department submitted a testimony statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the Supreme Court’s recent reinterpretation of Rule 23(a), governing class action certification. The hearing, convened by Senator Leahy, addressed possible congressional responses to the Court’s reinterpretation of legislative civil procedure rules in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. Witnesses included Betty Dukes, the principle plaintiff in the gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, who spoke about how corporations appear insulated from liability. Without access to class action certification, individuals face an unfair disadvantage in the fight against all forms of discrimination. For more about the Lawyers’ Committee stance on this issue, please read our testimony by clicking here.