ACLU: The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

On election night, Americans across the country were focused on one number: 270.

It’s a well-known – and hotly-contentious – fact that in American politics, presidential candidates must win 270 Electoral College votes to secure the White House. While news media rushed to declare the candidate with the most Electoral College votes on or around Election Day, the Electoral College’s work does not begin, nor end, on Election Day. Instead, electors cast their official votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the presidential election, which this election cycle falls on December 17.

At the ACLU, we have long argued that the Electoral College is an antiquated and undemocratic process for choosing the highest elected offices in our nation. So why do we have the Electoral College? What does it really do and do we actually need it? The ACLU explains.

The Electoral College was Created as a Compromise

Though the term "Electoral College" doesn't appear in the Constitution, it was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to address disagreements over how to select the president and vice president. The original system, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, allowed each elector to cast two votes for president, with the candidate who received the most votes becoming president and the second place finisher becoming vice president. This led to complications when political rivals were elected to these roles, prompting the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which required electors to cast separate votes for each office.

At the time, regional divisions also influenced the College’s creation. Southern states, where non-voting enslaved people made up about one-third of the population, opposed a direct popular vote that would have given their states less votes. After much debate, the convention eventually reached the decision to establish the system we now refer to as the Electoral College, applying the three-fifths compromise that counted three out of five enslaved people as part of a state’s total population, though they were still prohibited from voting.

State Size Determines The Number of Electoral Votes a State Gets

The number of Electoral College votes allocated to each state is equal to its total representation in Congress: two votes for its Senators and a number corresponding to its members in the House of Representatives. This allocation is based on the Census, which determines congressional apportionment every 10 years. In total, the Electoral College consists of 538 members, including three votes for the District of Columbia, granted by the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961. A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president.

State Electors Aren’t Actually Elected

The process for selecting electors varies by state, but typically involves a two-step process. Political parties first nominate a slate of electors who pledge to support their party’s candidate before the general election, often selecting party loyalists, state officials, or individuals with ties to their candidate. On Election Day, voters choose their state’s electors indirectly by voting for their preferred presidential candidate. Most states follow a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes receives all of the electoral votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska use a proportional allocation system, assigning two “at-large” electors to the overall statewide winner and appointing individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district.

Electors Who Stray From the Popular Vote Could Face Fines

Electors are not bound by the Constitution to vote according to the states’ popular vote, but more than 30 states and Washington D.C. have laws that legally obligate them to do so. Some states, such as South Carolina and Oklahoma, even impose criminal action or fines against electors that stray from the states’ popular vote.

Electors Don’t Vote On Election Day

Electors don't actually vote until December – more than a month after the election. During their meeting, electors formally cast separate votes for president and vice president with their results recorded on Certificates of Vote that are sent to the vice president acting as president of the Senate, relevant state officials, the local federal district courts, and the National Archives. These certificates must reach Washington, D.C. by December 25 to be included in the official count.

The final count, however, doesn't occur until even later. This year, on January 6, during a joint session of Congress, officials will declare the president and vice president. The president-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in two weeks later. If no candidate receives a majority of at least 270 votes, the election is decided by Congress, with the House selecting the president and the Senate choosing the vice president.

Why America Doesn’t Use the Popular Vote

The ACLU has opposed the Electoral College since 1969 for non-partisan reasons, including its undemocratic and unpredictable nature. Unfortunately, amending the Constitution to eliminate this antiquated system is difficult not just because amending the Constitution is hard – it would require at least 37 states to agree to a proposed change – but because the College’s supporters believe that it is a way to give small states power. States receive electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation, guaranteeing a minimum of three votes regardless of population size. This system elevates the influence of smaller states, as larger states would otherwise dominate national elections.

Why We Should Work to Eliminate the Electoral College

The Electoral College thwarts the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote” by awarding each state a number of electoral votes equal to its allocation of representatives plus its two senators. A voter in Wyoming thus has more than three times as much influence on the presidential election as a voter in more densely-populated California. That’s not to mention the racial and ethnic disparities in voting power that influence how electoral votes are allocated. One study calculated that Asian-Americans have barely more than half the voting power of white Americans because they tend to live in “safe” states — like Democratic-leaning New York and California and Republican-leaning Texas.

Right now, the Electoral College harms democracy when it:

• Nullifies the popular vote. In five presidential elections, the winner of the electoral college has lost the popular vote. This means that a presidential candidate that did not achieve a majority of the votes and was not supported by a majority or even plurality of the American people can still win through the electoral college and thus the election. Critics argue that the nullification of the popular vote also has a negative effect on voter turnout, discouraging voters from feeling like voting matters.
• Shrouds Electors in Secrecy. In most states, there is very little public information about how electors are selected and who they are. The process is entirely determined by political parties and incorporates little voter input. Many states also do not have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, risking the possibility of “faithless” electors who may vote contrary to the will of the voters.
• Gives “swing states” an unfair advantage. The Electoral College system disproportionately benefits certain “swing states” in which the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates from both political parties often invest significant resources and attention in these states, neglecting voters in states with a more predictable political leaning.

The Electoral College undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving disproportionate influence to smaller states and swing states allowing a candidate to potentially win the presidency without securing the popular vote. This outdated system fails to reflect the will of the people in a modern democracy, creating inequities in representation. Despite the uphill battle, amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College would ensure that every vote carries equal weight in presidential elections.

Published December 17, 2024 at 04:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/s9cen8K

ACLU: The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

On election night, Americans across the country were focused on one number: 270.

It’s a well-known – and hotly-contentious – fact that in American politics, presidential candidates must win 270 Electoral College votes to secure the White House. While news media rushed to declare the candidate with the most Electoral College votes on or around Election Day, the Electoral College’s work does not begin, nor end, on Election Day. Instead, electors cast their official votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the presidential election, which this election cycle falls on December 17.

At the ACLU, we have long argued that the Electoral College is an antiquated and undemocratic process for choosing the highest elected offices in our nation. So why do we have the Electoral College? What does it really do and do we actually need it? The ACLU explains.

The Electoral College was Created as a Compromise

Though the term "Electoral College" doesn't appear in the Constitution, it was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to address disagreements over how to select the president and vice president. The original system, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, allowed each elector to cast two votes for president, with the candidate who received the most votes becoming president and the second place finisher becoming vice president. This led to complications when political rivals were elected to these roles, prompting the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which required electors to cast separate votes for each office.

At the time, regional divisions also influenced the College’s creation. Southern states, where non-voting enslaved people made up about one-third of the population, opposed a direct popular vote that would have given their states less votes. After much debate, the convention eventually reached the decision to establish the system we now refer to as the Electoral College, applying the three-fifths compromise that counted three out of five enslaved people as part of a state’s total population, though they were still prohibited from voting.

State Size Determines The Number of Electoral Votes a State Gets

The number of Electoral College votes allocated to each state is equal to its total representation in Congress: two votes for its Senators and a number corresponding to its members in the House of Representatives. This allocation is based on the Census, which determines congressional apportionment every 10 years. In total, the Electoral College consists of 538 members, including three votes for the District of Columbia, granted by the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961. A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president.

State Electors Aren’t Actually Elected

The process for selecting electors varies by state, but typically involves a two-step process. Political parties first nominate a slate of electors who pledge to support their party’s candidate before the general election, often selecting party loyalists, state officials, or individuals with ties to their candidate. On Election Day, voters choose their state’s electors indirectly by voting for their preferred presidential candidate. Most states follow a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes receives all of the electoral votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska use a proportional allocation system, assigning two “at-large” electors to the overall statewide winner and appointing individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district.

Electors Who Stray From the Popular Vote Could Face Fines

Electors are not bound by the Constitution to vote according to the states’ popular vote, but more than 30 states and Washington D.C. have laws that legally obligate them to do so. Some states, such as South Carolina and Oklahoma, even impose criminal action or fines against electors that stray from the states’ popular vote.

Electors Don’t Vote On Election Day

Electors don't actually vote until December – more than a month after the election. During their meeting, electors formally cast separate votes for president and vice president with their results recorded on Certificates of Vote that are sent to the vice president acting as president of the Senate, relevant state officials, the local federal district courts, and the National Archives. These certificates must reach Washington, D.C. by December 25 to be included in the official count.

The final count, however, doesn't occur until even later. This year, on January 6, during a joint session of Congress, officials will declare the president and vice president. The president-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in two weeks later. If no candidate receives a majority of at least 270 votes, the election is decided by Congress, with the House selecting the president and the Senate choosing the vice president.

Why America Doesn’t Use the Popular Vote

The ACLU has opposed the Electoral College since 1969 for non-partisan reasons, including its undemocratic and unpredictable nature. Unfortunately, amending the Constitution to eliminate this antiquated system is difficult not just because amending the Constitution is hard – it would require at least 37 states to agree to a proposed change – but because the College’s supporters believe that it is a way to give small states power. States receive electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation, guaranteeing a minimum of three votes regardless of population size. This system elevates the influence of smaller states, as larger states would otherwise dominate national elections.

Why We Should Work to Eliminate the Electoral College

The Electoral College thwarts the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote” by awarding each state a number of electoral votes equal to its allocation of representatives plus its two senators. A voter in Wyoming thus has more than three times as much influence on the presidential election as a voter in more densely-populated California. That’s not to mention the racial and ethnic disparities in voting power that influence how electoral votes are allocated. One study calculated that Asian-Americans have barely more than half the voting power of white Americans because they tend to live in “safe” states — like Democratic-leaning New York and California and Republican-leaning Texas.

Right now, the Electoral College harms democracy when it:

• Nullifies the popular vote. In five presidential elections, the winner of the electoral college has lost the popular vote. This means that a presidential candidate that did not achieve a majority of the votes and was not supported by a majority or even plurality of the American people can still win through the electoral college and thus the election. Critics argue that the nullification of the popular vote also has a negative effect on voter turnout, discouraging voters from feeling like voting matters.
• Shrouds Electors in Secrecy. In most states, there is very little public information about how electors are selected and who they are. The process is entirely determined by political parties and incorporates little voter input. Many states also do not have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, risking the possibility of “faithless” electors who may vote contrary to the will of the voters.
• Gives “swing states” an unfair advantage. The Electoral College system disproportionately benefits certain “swing states” in which the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates from both political parties often invest significant resources and attention in these states, neglecting voters in states with a more predictable political leaning.

The Electoral College undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving disproportionate influence to smaller states and swing states allowing a candidate to potentially win the presidency without securing the popular vote. This outdated system fails to reflect the will of the people in a modern democracy, creating inequities in representation. Despite the uphill battle, amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College would ensure that every vote carries equal weight in presidential elections.

Published December 17, 2024 at 10:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/54Iw3zO

ACLU: Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives

Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives


Published December 17, 2024 at 12:06AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/SFrLVHb

ACLU: Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives

Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives


Published December 16, 2024 at 06:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lHFtvBT

ACLU: Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained

Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained


Published December 13, 2024 at 09:50PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vmz7GZ4

ACLU: Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained

Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained


Published December 14, 2024 at 03:20AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/qeCsTUg

ACLU: Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.

Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.


Published December 11, 2024 at 09:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EYgrJ8s

ACLU: Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.

Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.


Published December 12, 2024 at 02:31AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/hTLgMNf

ACLU: Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue

Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue


Published December 11, 2024 at 02:28AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rjMQsJh

ACLU: Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue

Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue


Published December 10, 2024 at 08:58PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lkeY6fE

ACLU: We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases

We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases


Published December 10, 2024 at 05:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZpRY7Cg

ACLU: We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases

We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases


Published December 10, 2024 at 10:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/DkRPmi2

ACLU: SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

From a young age, I enjoyed playing around with gender roles, but it wasn’t until later in my adolescence that I started to have more complex thoughts about my gender identity. What I discovered, both in my childhood and later in my development, was that a lot of trans folks have similarly nonlinear approaches, or nonlinear journeys, to their trans lives. There were moments I was very attached to my femininity, and moments where I felt more masculine. Getting to exist on either side of this gender binary – and explore the middle ground between them – was invaluable.

As a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

However, as I was navigating this complex development, I did not have adults in my life to whom I could turn for guidance and support with my gender. When I was younger, I didn’t have access to the doctors or health care providers who could help me access gender affirming care – or just talk to me about my gender. That’s why, as a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

In my work, I’ve found that speaking with young people about their gender leads to really fruitful conversations about concerns or curiosities that they may have. But medical care, and health care more broadly, isn’t just about questions and answers. It’s about making space for complex conversations that let young people and their families know we can go on this path of self discovery together.

As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self.

Adolescence is a time during which many start figuring out who they are, and it’s exciting to see young people question the structures of our society, including the structures of gender. But too often we underestimate young people’s ability to introspect, and we question them when they tell us who they are. As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self. No one makes the decision to seek out gender-affirming care on a whim. To those who consider gender-affirming care a drastic decision, I have seen that it is in fact something that is carefully considered by young people, their families, and their provider. And that is who should get to make those decisions. Governments should not be allowed to make decisions about our bodies, and the proliferation of gender-affirming care bans is not only deeply transphobic, but also sets a dangerous precedent.

Right now, this medically-necessary care is being maligned by pseudoscience, fear, and bigotry. We know these treatments are safe. We also know that young people can end up changing their minds. That’s also something that’s safe to do. We've been offering the same therapies for youth who are not transgender for a long time. It only seemed to cause a political problem when it started affecting trans folks.

Every single patient that approaches care, both in a gender-affirming context and in all other medical contexts, has a very individual story, has very individual goals, and has a very specific context in which they might be seeking that care. What I’m really hoping for is a world where trans adolescents have the autonomy and power to make decisions about their bodies without political interference and with the support of family and their health care providers. For me, that is a world where we really celebrate transness for the beauty that I think it is.

Published December 3, 2024 at 08:43PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/V9m3ulb

ACLU: SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

From a young age, I enjoyed playing around with gender roles, but it wasn’t until later in my adolescence that I started to have more complex thoughts about my gender identity. What I discovered, both in my childhood and later in my development, was that a lot of trans folks have similarly nonlinear approaches, or nonlinear journeys, to their trans lives. There were moments I was very attached to my femininity, and moments where I felt more masculine. Getting to exist on either side of this gender binary – and explore the middle ground between them – was invaluable.

As a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

However, as I was navigating this complex development, I did not have adults in my life to whom I could turn for guidance and support with my gender. When I was younger, I didn’t have access to the doctors or health care providers who could help me access gender affirming care – or just talk to me about my gender. That’s why, as a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

In my work, I’ve found that speaking with young people about their gender leads to really fruitful conversations about concerns or curiosities that they may have. But medical care, and health care more broadly, isn’t just about questions and answers. It’s about making space for complex conversations that let young people and their families know we can go on this path of self discovery together.

As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self.

Adolescence is a time during which many start figuring out who they are, and it’s exciting to see young people question the structures of our society, including the structures of gender. But too often we underestimate young people’s ability to introspect, and we question them when they tell us who they are. As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self. No one makes the decision to seek out gender-affirming care on a whim. To those who consider gender-affirming care a drastic decision, I have seen that it is in fact something that is carefully considered by young people, their families, and their provider. And that is who should get to make those decisions. Governments should not be allowed to make decisions about our bodies, and the proliferation of gender-affirming care bans is not only deeply transphobic, but also sets a dangerous precedent.

Right now, this medically-necessary care is being maligned by pseudoscience, fear, and bigotry. We know these treatments are safe. We also know that young people can end up changing their minds. That’s also something that’s safe to do. We've been offering the same therapies for youth who are not transgender for a long time. It only seemed to cause a political problem when it started affecting trans folks.

Every single patient that approaches care, both in a gender-affirming context and in all other medical contexts, has a very individual story, has very individual goals, and has a very specific context in which they might be seeking that care. What I’m really hoping for is a world where trans adolescents have the autonomy and power to make decisions about their bodies without political interference and with the support of family and their health care providers. For me, that is a world where we really celebrate transness for the beauty that I think it is.

Published December 4, 2024 at 02:13AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/AbOVxWk

ACLU: Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids

Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids

The opioid epidemic has gripped communities for more than 20 years. From 1999 to 2022, nearly 722,000 people died from an overdose involving prescription and illicit opioids. Litigation has dramatically changed the substance-use disorder policy landscape and, today, more than $50 billion in opioid settlements from pharmaceutical companies, distributors, pharmacies, consultants, and others are hitting state and local coffers. This creates an unprecedented opportunity to invest in substance-use disorder care that saves lives.

Importantly, a separate wave of litigation is reshaping the way jails and prisons care for incarcerated people with opioid-use disorder. These lawsuits seek to require jails and prisons to provide medications for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) to all people for whom it is medically appropriate.

The data is clear: MOUD saves lives. Treatment of opioid-use disorder with methadone and buprenorphine — two of the three FDA-approved MOUDs — is associated with a 50 percent decrease in mortality.

How MOUD Increases Positive Health Outcomes in Jails and Prisons

People in jails and prisons experience opioid-use disorder at far higher rates than the general population, making MOUD during and immediately after incarceration essential. The time period immediately after being released from incarceration is an extremely dangerous time for those addicted to substances, especially for those who have been denied MOUD during incarceration. Recently incarcerated people who did not have access to MOUD in jail or prison are dozens of times more likely than the general population to die of an overdose in the weeks following release. For those recently released from jail or prison, access to MOUD was associated with a 75 percent decrease in mortality and an 85 percent decrease in overdose deaths in the month following release.

How Lawsuits Help to Increase Access to MOUDs

Denial of MOUD access for incarcerated people is not just wrong—it is also illegal. With court victories in Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and West Virginia, as well as settlements and other positive resolutions in Washington, Kansas, Illinois, and New Mexico, the legal groundwork is shifting toward requiring access to this life-saving care. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released guidance re-affirming that denial of MOUD can amount to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (AMA), and the DOJ has settled several cases requiring jail and prison facilities to provide access to MOUD.

Many of the legal cases on this topic thus far have sought to change policies and practices to require the jail or prison to provide MOUD; generally these lawsuits do not yet seek monetary damages for failure to provide care. That too is changing. Recent lawsuits in West Virginia, Maine, and New York have brought damages claims against jails and prisons that have failed to provide adequate care. If these cases succeed, jails and prisons that fail to provide MOUD risk not only a time-consuming and expensive lawsuit, but also the possibility of owing large amounts for the pain, suffering, and even the wrongful death of people in their custody who were denied adequate medical care.

Policy Must Make MOUD a Requirement in Prison and Jail

A strong policy push at the federal, state, and local levels to expand access to MOUD for incarcerated people has made a big difference. The Joe Biden administration launched the Medicaid Reentry Section 1115 Demonstration Opportunity, allowing states to apply to receive federal Medicaid matching funds for certain pre-release services—including MOUD—in the last 90 days of incarceration. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has funded expansion of MOUD services in jails and the federal Bureau of Prisons is in the process of launching MOUD programs in all of its facilities. Sixteen states now require access to MOUD in jails, prisons, or both.

Today, 22.1 percent of jails provide buprenorphine maintenance care to people who were already on buprenorphine in the community, and 16 percent of jails provide methadone maintenance to people already on methadone. While these numbers represent real progress from the handful of jails providing MOUD just a few years ago, there is so much more work to be done. Many people in jail or prison have an opioid-use disorder but were not able to access MOUD in their communities. Jails and prisons must provide those people, too, with clinically-appropriate MOUD care.

Investment in MOUD After Incarceration is Vital

While litigation has been an important tool to make policy change and expand MOUD access in jails and prisons, litigating in each and every jurisdiction in the country would take many years. Opioid settlement dollars can expedite this process and help to enact policy change and provide MOUD in jails and prisons now. With more than $50 billion of settlement dollars starting to go to states and other local jurisdictions over the next two decades, localities should use some of their settlement dollars to establish MOUD programs in their state prisons and local jails to save countless lives.

Investment in this critical care is a vital step toward not only improving the lives of the incarcerated, but also to providing medically-necessary support for people with opioid use disorder long after prison. Studies show that MOUD not only saves lives, but also reduces recidivism. To continue this positive trend, recently incarcerated people with opioid-use disorder need places in the community to go to receive treatment. They need probation and parole departments, and housing providers, that don’t illegally discriminate against them for their use of MOUD.

"Investment in this critical care is a vital step toward not only improving the lives of the incarcerated, but also to providing medically-necessary support for people with opioid use disorder long after prison."

Importantly, people who aren’t ready for treatment still need, and deserve, life-saving harm reduction services. Communities must think expansively and comprehensively about investing the $50 billion in opioid settlement money across the continuum of care and services—including in harm reduction, workforce development, community treatment, and MOUD in jails and prisons—to establish sustainable, widespread, and meaningful access to lifesaving care and treatment.

Published November 25, 2024 at 06:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ILKs3Dr

ACLU: Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids

Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids

The opioid epidemic has gripped communities for more than 20 years. From 1999 to 2022, nearly 722,000 people died from an overdose involving prescription and illicit opioids. Litigation has dramatically changed the substance-use disorder policy landscape and, today, more than $50 billion in opioid settlements from pharmaceutical companies, distributors, pharmacies, consultants, and others are hitting state and local coffers. This creates an unprecedented opportunity to invest in substance-use disorder care that saves lives.

Importantly, a separate wave of litigation is reshaping the way jails and prisons care for incarcerated people with opioid-use disorder. These lawsuits seek to require jails and prisons to provide medications for opioid-use disorder (MOUD) to all people for whom it is medically appropriate.

The data is clear: MOUD saves lives. Treatment of opioid-use disorder with methadone and buprenorphine — two of the three FDA-approved MOUDs — is associated with a 50 percent decrease in mortality.

How MOUD Increases Positive Health Outcomes in Jails and Prisons

People in jails and prisons experience opioid-use disorder at far higher rates than the general population, making MOUD during and immediately after incarceration essential. The time period immediately after being released from incarceration is an extremely dangerous time for those addicted to substances, especially for those who have been denied MOUD during incarceration. Recently incarcerated people who did not have access to MOUD in jail or prison are dozens of times more likely than the general population to die of an overdose in the weeks following release. For those recently released from jail or prison, access to MOUD was associated with a 75 percent decrease in mortality and an 85 percent decrease in overdose deaths in the month following release.

How Lawsuits Help to Increase Access to MOUDs

Denial of MOUD access for incarcerated people is not just wrong—it is also illegal. With court victories in Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and West Virginia, as well as settlements and other positive resolutions in Washington, Kansas, Illinois, and New Mexico, the legal groundwork is shifting toward requiring access to this life-saving care. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released guidance re-affirming that denial of MOUD can amount to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (AMA), and the DOJ has settled several cases requiring jail and prison facilities to provide access to MOUD.

Many of the legal cases on this topic thus far have sought to change policies and practices to require the jail or prison to provide MOUD; generally these lawsuits do not yet seek monetary damages for failure to provide care. That too is changing. Recent lawsuits in West Virginia, Maine, and New York have brought damages claims against jails and prisons that have failed to provide adequate care. If these cases succeed, jails and prisons that fail to provide MOUD risk not only a time-consuming and expensive lawsuit, but also the possibility of owing large amounts for the pain, suffering, and even the wrongful death of people in their custody who were denied adequate medical care.

Policy Must Make MOUD a Requirement in Prison and Jail

A strong policy push at the federal, state, and local levels to expand access to MOUD for incarcerated people has made a big difference. The Joe Biden administration launched the Medicaid Reentry Section 1115 Demonstration Opportunity, allowing states to apply to receive federal Medicaid matching funds for certain pre-release services—including MOUD—in the last 90 days of incarceration. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has funded expansion of MOUD services in jails and the federal Bureau of Prisons is in the process of launching MOUD programs in all of its facilities. Sixteen states now require access to MOUD in jails, prisons, or both.

Today, 22.1 percent of jails provide buprenorphine maintenance care to people who were already on buprenorphine in the community, and 16 percent of jails provide methadone maintenance to people already on methadone. While these numbers represent real progress from the handful of jails providing MOUD just a few years ago, there is so much more work to be done. Many people in jail or prison have an opioid-use disorder but were not able to access MOUD in their communities. Jails and prisons must provide those people, too, with clinically-appropriate MOUD care.

Investment in MOUD After Incarceration is Vital

While litigation has been an important tool to make policy change and expand MOUD access in jails and prisons, litigating in each and every jurisdiction in the country would take many years. Opioid settlement dollars can expedite this process and help to enact policy change and provide MOUD in jails and prisons now. With more than $50 billion of settlement dollars starting to go to states and other local jurisdictions over the next two decades, localities should use some of their settlement dollars to establish MOUD programs in their state prisons and local jails to save countless lives.

Investment in this critical care is a vital step toward not only improving the lives of the incarcerated, but also to providing medically-necessary support for people with opioid use disorder long after prison. Studies show that MOUD not only saves lives, but also reduces recidivism. To continue this positive trend, recently incarcerated people with opioid-use disorder need places in the community to go to receive treatment. They need probation and parole departments, and housing providers, that don’t illegally discriminate against them for their use of MOUD.

"Investment in this critical care is a vital step toward not only improving the lives of the incarcerated, but also to providing medically-necessary support for people with opioid use disorder long after prison."

Importantly, people who aren’t ready for treatment still need, and deserve, life-saving harm reduction services. Communities must think expansively and comprehensively about investing the $50 billion in opioid settlement money across the continuum of care and services—including in harm reduction, workforce development, community treatment, and MOUD in jails and prisons—to establish sustainable, widespread, and meaningful access to lifesaving care and treatment.

Published November 25, 2024 at 01:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/0rjY4D5

ACLU: How Biden Can Act Now to Limit Trump’s Mass Deportation Agenda

How Biden Can Act Now to Limit Trump’s Mass Deportation Agenda

President-elect Donald Trump has made mass detention of immigrant communities a central part of his political platform. Trump’s cabinet nominees are reportedly laying the groundwork to expand detention capacity in cities around the country. The Trump administration's proposed plans include making detention mandatory, which would trap immigrants in abusive, inhumane conditions for years as they fight deportation.

Immigration detention, or civil detention for those awaiting a determination of their immigration status or deportation, must be limited. Right now President Joe Biden can act to limit mass detention of immigrants by closing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities with egregious records of human rights violations and abuses and halt further detention expansion.

---

The Facts

During the last Trump presidency, ICE opened more than 40 new detention facilities, with the vast majority owned or operated by private prison corporations, whose business model depends on locking up more people and are ultimately accountable to their bottom line.

Earlier this summer, President Biden directed ICE to issue Requests for Information (RFIs) and contract solicitations to identify new detention facilities to allow for a possible expansion of immigration detention across the country. These RFIs and contract solicitation indicated that ICE is considering expanding detention in at least 17 states.

Right now ICE detains approximately 37,000 people each day. These numbers exceed its annual budget and congressionally-approved detention levels. Efforts to expand the mass detention machine would lay the groundwork for future administrations to continue to abuse its detention powers, especially with the support of the next Trump administration.

---

Why It Matters

Immigration detention has become another system of mass incarceration for Black and Brown people in the United States. It is also often inhumane. Congress, government oversight agencies, the media, and advocacy groups have documented widespread abuse in immigration detention centers, including use of force, sexual assault, and solitary confinement. In the past four years alone, at least 43 people have died in ICE custody. A recent ACLU study showed that 95 percent of deaths in ICE custody were likely preventable had ICE provided adequate medical and mental health care.

These abusive conditions come at an immense cost to taxpayers, while lining the pockets of private prison corporations. Nearly 90 percent of people in ICE detention are held in facilities owned or operated by private prison companies. In 2022, the GEO Group made $1.05 billion in revenue from ICE contracts alone. President Trump intends to continue funneling money to these private corporations. His proposed immigration policies are by far crueler, more extreme, and more fundamentally damaging to core rights and freedoms than any in living memory, including his own 2017-21 policies. Mass raids and deportations, detention camps, and other extreme measures create terror in our communities and do nothing to make our immigration system function more effectively.

---

Our Roadmap

The ACLU is calling on President Biden to close detention facilities and halt ICE’s current detention expansion plans. These steps are vital to protect communities from the planned enforcement agenda of the incoming administration. They are also vital to saving lives and preventing abuses against people in ICE custody, often committed by for-profit prison companies. ICE should also immediately rescind all outstanding requests for information or proposals for detention expansion.

---

What Our Experts Say

“Immigration detention is cruel, unnecessary, and risky. President Biden must act now to do all that he can now to prevent full-scale attacks against vulnerable immigrant communities.” -- Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney, ACLU National Prison Project

---

What You Can Do Today

President Biden can stop the expansion of immigration detention facilities and close abusive detention facilities once and for all. Urge him to do so today.

Published November 21, 2024 at 02:00AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Ma7RQgc

ACLU: How Biden Can Act Now to Limit Trump’s Mass Deportation Agenda

How Biden Can Act Now to Limit Trump’s Mass Deportation Agenda

President-elect Donald Trump has made mass detention of immigrant communities a central part of his political platform. Trump’s cabinet nominees are reportedly laying the groundwork to expand detention capacity in cities around the country. The Trump administration's proposed plans include making detention mandatory, which would trap immigrants in abusive, inhumane conditions for years as they fight deportation.

Immigration detention, or civil detention for those awaiting a determination of their immigration status or deportation, must be limited. Right now President Joe Biden can act to limit mass detention of immigrants by closing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities with egregious records of human rights violations and abuses and halt further detention expansion.

---

The Facts

During the last Trump presidency, ICE opened more than 40 new detention facilities, with the vast majority owned or operated by private prison corporations, whose business model depends on locking up more people and are ultimately accountable to their bottom line.

Earlier this summer, President Biden directed ICE to issue Requests for Information (RFIs) and contract solicitations to identify new detention facilities to allow for a possible expansion of immigration detention across the country. These RFIs and contract solicitation indicated that ICE is considering expanding detention in at least 17 states.

Right now ICE detains approximately 37,000 people each day. These numbers exceed its annual budget and congressionally-approved detention levels. Efforts to expand the mass detention machine would lay the groundwork for future administrations to continue to abuse its detention powers, especially with the support of the next Trump administration.

---

Why It Matters

Immigration detention has become another system of mass incarceration for Black and Brown people in the United States. It is also often inhumane. Congress, government oversight agencies, the media, and advocacy groups have documented widespread abuse in immigration detention centers, including use of force, sexual assault, and solitary confinement. In the past four years alone, at least 43 people have died in ICE custody. A recent ACLU study showed that 95 percent of deaths in ICE custody were likely preventable had ICE provided adequate medical and mental health care.

These abusive conditions come at an immense cost to taxpayers, while lining the pockets of private prison corporations. Nearly 90 percent of people in ICE detention are held in facilities owned or operated by private prison companies. In 2022, the GEO Group made $1.05 billion in revenue from ICE contracts alone. President Trump intends to continue funneling money to these private corporations. His proposed immigration policies are by far crueler, more extreme, and more fundamentally damaging to core rights and freedoms than any in living memory, including his own 2017-21 policies. Mass raids and deportations, detention camps, and other extreme measures create terror in our communities and do nothing to make our immigration system function more effectively.

---

Our Roadmap

The ACLU is calling on President Biden to close detention facilities and halt ICE’s current detention expansion plans. These steps are vital to protect communities from the planned enforcement agenda of the incoming administration. They are also vital to saving lives and preventing abuses against people in ICE custody, often committed by for-profit prison companies. ICE should also immediately rescind all outstanding requests for information or proposals for detention expansion.

---

What Our Experts Say

“Immigration detention is cruel, unnecessary, and risky. President Biden must act now to do all that he can now to prevent full-scale attacks against vulnerable immigrant communities.” -- Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney, ACLU National Prison Project

---

What You Can Do Today

President Biden can stop the expansion of immigration detention facilities and close abusive detention facilities once and for all. Urge him to do so today.

Published November 20, 2024 at 08:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/MOom739

ACLU: On Trans Day of Remembrance, My Grief is My Power

On Trans Day of Remembrance, My Grief is My Power

Twenty minutes from where I grew up, in Owasso, Oklahoma, Nex Benedict was relentlessly bullied for being trans. This bigoted aggression continued for more than a year and, last March, Nex died after being physically beaten in a school bathroom.

Nex is far from alone. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention one in four transgender youth missed school because they knew they were unsafe. A Department of Education (ED) investigation found that Nex’s experience was part of a routine negligence to prevent sex-based harassment in their school district.

Trans Day of Remembrance is an annual ceremony of mourning for the trans and gender non-conforming people whose lives were lost to anti-trans violence this year. In 2024, four of those lost were teenagers, like Nex. The youngest, Pauly Likens, was murdered at just 14. Memorializing our trans kindred we lost in the previous year started with the 1998 death of Rita Hester and, for 26 years, this day has served as a reminder of how vitally important it is that we remember those we’ve lost, and that we continue to fight for justice.

I started my advocacy doing reproductive justice organizing in Oklahoma, not far from where Nex grew up. At the core of reproductive justice is the fundamental belief that everyone has the right to decide if, when, and how they have children and the right to raise those children in a safe and healthy environment. In that work, I saw anti-abortion legislators in Oklahoma pursue countless policies that allowed the state to police our bodies, from abortion access to gender identity. It was that fundamental belief in autonomy — that my body is mine, and mine alone — helped me understand my own transness.

Trans individuals are policed because we bend expectations of gender when we inhabit public spaces like bathrooms, when we seek housing, relationships, and education. Social, political, and legal institutions continue to attempt to control our bodies and our lives. But it is this refusal of expectations, this insistence on the freedom to be ourselves, that makes us who we are. Right now, extremist politicians across the country are putting our lives at risk when they restrict access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Josseli Barnica died waiting for emergency abortion care. Trans youth and their parents have reported devastating interruptions in medically-necessary health care when politicians attempt to ban gender-affirming care. In one study, 70 percent of gender-affirming care providers reported receiving threats to their personal safety or their practice.

On this Trans Day of Remembrance, I can’t stop thinking about the important precedent the Supreme Court is about to set. On December 4, the Supreme Court will take up U.S. v Skrmetti, a case that would decide whether or not trans youth are protected by the Constitution. This case asks the court to decide whether Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause. The ACLU is prepared to tell the court what we know is true: Trans people are protected by the Constitution, just like everyone else, and that includes our access to gender-affirming care.

My colleagues and I are working tirelessly for the right to live our lives with dignity and the right to choose what is best for our own bodies. But today, I am also grieving. In our grief, justice can feel like an abstract concept, but in our pain and anger is an understanding that, even when justice feels bloodless, injustice must still be stopped. The relentless political attacks on the LGBTQ community that seek to dehumanize us must be stopped. The lack of adequate medical care, shelter and mental health resources must be stopped.

Mariame Kaba reminds us that we should let our grief radicalize us rather than lead us to despair. It is not radical to want safety and justice for myself and my community — it is a fundamental right. Trans people deserve the freedom to be who we are.

Today, we mourn and honor those who we have lost. Tomorrow, we celebrate, support, and fight like hell for the trans and non-binary people who are still living.

Published November 20, 2024 at 06:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/bQVjFmh

ACLU: On Trans Day of Remembrance, My Grief is My Power

On Trans Day of Remembrance, My Grief is My Power

Twenty minutes from where I grew up, in Owasso, Oklahoma, Nex Benedict was relentlessly bullied for being trans. This bigoted aggression continued for more than a year and, last March, Nex died after being physically beaten in a school bathroom.

Nex is far from alone. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention one in four transgender youth missed school because they knew they were unsafe. A Department of Education (ED) investigation found that Nex’s experience was part of a routine negligence to prevent sex-based harassment in their school district.

Trans Day of Remembrance is an annual ceremony of mourning for the trans and gender non-conforming people whose lives were lost to anti-trans violence this year. In 2024, four of those lost were teenagers, like Nex. The youngest, Pauly Likens, was murdered at just 14. Memorializing our trans kindred we lost in the previous year started with the 1998 death of Rita Hester and, for 26 years, this day has served as a reminder of how vitally important it is that we remember those we’ve lost, and that we continue to fight for justice.

I started my advocacy doing reproductive justice organizing in Oklahoma, not far from where Nex grew up. At the core of reproductive justice is the fundamental belief that everyone has the right to decide if, when, and how they have children and the right to raise those children in a safe and healthy environment. In that work, I saw anti-abortion legislators in Oklahoma pursue countless policies that allowed the state to police our bodies, from abortion access to gender identity. It was that fundamental belief in autonomy — that my body is mine, and mine alone — helped me understand my own transness.

Trans individuals are policed because we bend expectations of gender when we inhabit public spaces like bathrooms, when we seek housing, relationships, and education. Social, political, and legal institutions continue to attempt to control our bodies and our lives. But it is this refusal of expectations, this insistence on the freedom to be ourselves, that makes us who we are. Right now, extremist politicians across the country are putting our lives at risk when they restrict access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Josseli Barnica died waiting for emergency abortion care. Trans youth and their parents have reported devastating interruptions in medically-necessary health care when politicians attempt to ban gender-affirming care. In one study, 70 percent of gender-affirming care providers reported receiving threats to their personal safety or their practice.

On this Trans Day of Remembrance, I can’t stop thinking about the important precedent the Supreme Court is about to set. On December 4, the Supreme Court will take up U.S. v Skrmetti, a case that would decide whether or not trans youth are protected by the Constitution. This case asks the court to decide whether Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause. The ACLU is prepared to tell the court what we know is true: Trans people are protected by the Constitution, just like everyone else, and that includes our access to gender-affirming care.

My colleagues and I are working tirelessly for the right to live our lives with dignity and the right to choose what is best for our own bodies. But today, I am also grieving. In our grief, justice can feel like an abstract concept, but in our pain and anger is an understanding that, even when justice feels bloodless, injustice must still be stopped. The relentless political attacks on the LGBTQ community that seek to dehumanize us must be stopped. The lack of adequate medical care, shelter and mental health resources must be stopped.

Mariame Kaba reminds us that we should let our grief radicalize us rather than lead us to despair. It is not radical to want safety and justice for myself and my community — it is a fundamental right. Trans people deserve the freedom to be who we are.

Today, we mourn and honor those who we have lost. Tomorrow, we celebrate, support, and fight like hell for the trans and non-binary people who are still living.

Published November 21, 2024 at 12:29AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/9lb1kWx

ACLU: Biden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death Sentences

Biden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death Sentences

President-elect Donald Trump has chilling plans to use his second term to expand the federal death penalty. This expansion continues the killing spree he initiated in the final six months of his first presidency when Trump oversaw more executions than any president in the past 120 years. His plans for a second term include sentencing more people to die, expanding the category of crimes punishable by death, and killing all 40 people currently on federal death row.

President Joe Biden can — and must — act now to finish the death penalty reform work his administration began in 2020. He must commute the sentences of all people on federal death row to stymie Trump’s plans and to redress the racial injustice inherent to capital punishment.

Tell President Biden to Commute the Row

The federal death penalty is plagued with systemic flaws at the expense of human life. Donald Trump has promised to expand it. We must act now....

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

---

The Facts

The ACLU has long fought for an end to the death penalty. We know that its cruel practices are out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system. Trump’s return to the White House, and his unprecedented, extreme, and inhumane stance on capital punishment, only threaten to make an already cruel system more dangerous.

Already, Trump has called to unconstitutionally expand the death penalty to include non-homicide crimes, such as drug-related offenses. He has also reportedly called for the death penalty as punishment for those who leak information against him in the press or undermine him politically. He has suggested bringing back firing squads, the guillotine, and hangings by noose – a symbol and tool of our country’s sordid legacy of lynching and racial terror.

Trump’s promise to expand the death penalty magnifies the systemic inequities that already plague our capital punishment system. The federal death penalty, like state capital punishment systems, is error prone, racially-biased, and a drain on public resources. More than half of those under federal death sentence in 2024 are people of color, some of whom were convicted by all-white juries. People with serious mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities, brain damage, and histories of trauma are also overrepresented on death rows across the country, including the federal row. Additionally, as long as the death penalty exists, we risk executing innocent people, as evidenced by the 200 people who have been sentenced to death and exonerated since 1973.

In 2020, Biden made history as the first president to openly oppose the death penalty. Under his leadership, the Department of Justice (DOJ) acknowledged the death penalty’s disparate impact on people of color as well as the staggering number of people who have been sentenced to death and, subsequently, exonerated over the past five decades. Though Biden stopped short of acting on his promise to secure an end to capital punishment, he can still save lives and help build a legacy rooted in racial justice by commuting all federal death sentences to life in prison.

---

Why It Matters

Studies show that the death penalty does not keep our communities safer. In fact, research has consistently shown that the death penalty does not deter homicides and that in states that homicides are lower in states that do not have the death penalty.

Trump has consistently ignored these facts. Instead, during his last term, he went on a killing spree and rapidly executed 13 men in quick succession without regard for serious miscarriages of justice. Of the 13 people Trump executed in his last term, two were Black men sentenced as teenagers, one was a woman with mental illness who had survived a lifetime of horrific sexual abuse and torture, another was a man with intellectual disabilities, and there was also a 67-year-old man whose Alzheimer’s disease left him unaware of the reason he was sentenced to die. A majority of the 13 executed were people of color, including seven Black men and one Native American man.

These executions, particularly of people with mental illness and intellectual disability, demonstrate that no amount of procedure eliminates the fundamental flaws of the death penalty.

---

Our Roadmap

The ACLU is calling on President Biden to commute the sentences of all people on federal death row before he leaves office. Commuting federal death sentences will redress the legacy of racial bias inherent to capital punishment and make Trump’s brutal plans for another killing spree impossible. If Biden does this he’ll not only take away Trump’s power to oversee another execution, but he’ll also help set the U.S. on a different course. By setting an example of empathy and a willingness to root out injustice, he can pave the way for future administrations to build on his legacy and finally end capital punishment.

Our work is not confined to federal commutation efforts. The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and usual punishment, including Trump’s proposals to expand the application of the death penalty to non-homicide crimes like drug trafficking and to use methods like hanging or the guillotine. The ACLUis ready on day one to challenge inhumane death penalty expansion efforts and any attempts to return to regressive killing methods.

At the state-level, the ACLU will build on our ongoing work against the death penalty. We’ll continue our litigation in states like Kansas and North Carolina under laws that are more protective than the U.S. Constitution — like state racial justice acts and constitutions — to invalidate the death penalty based on its racist administration, including in the selection of jury members.

---

What Our Experts Say

“The death penalty is a morally-bankrupt and inescapably racist institution. President Biden came into office committing to abolishing the federal death penalty because of its fundamental flaws. Commuting the federal row is the way he can honor that commitment, and prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice.” — Yasmin Cader, ACLU deputy legal director and the director of the Trone Center for Justice and Equality.”

---

What You Can Do Today

President Biden can commute all federal death sentences before his time as president ends, saving lives, preventing an irreversible miscarriage of justice, and building a legacy rooted in racial justice and compassion. Urge him to do so today.

Published November 14, 2024 at 10:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/6GrPOcE

ACLU: Biden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death Sentences

Biden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death Sentences

President-elect Donald Trump has chilling plans to use his second term to expand the federal death penalty. This expansion continues the killing spree he initiated in the final six months of his first presidency when Trump oversaw more executions than any president in the past 120 years. His plans for a second term include sentencing more people to die, expanding the category of crimes punishable by death, and killing all 40 people currently on federal death row.

President Joe Biden can — and must — act now to finish the death penalty reform work his administration began in 2020. He must commute the sentences of all people on federal death row to stymie Trump’s plans and to redress the racial injustice inherent to capital punishment.

Tell President Biden to Commute the Row

The federal death penalty is plagued with systemic flaws at the expense of human life. Donald Trump has promised to expand it. We must act now....

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

---

The Facts

The ACLU has long fought for an end to the death penalty. We know that its cruel practices are out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system. Trump’s return to the White House, and his unprecedented, extreme, and inhumane stance on capital punishment, only threaten to make an already cruel system more dangerous.

Already, Trump has called to unconstitutionally expand the death penalty to include non-homicide crimes, such as drug-related offenses. He has also reportedly called for the death penalty as punishment for those who leak information against him in the press or undermine him politically. He has suggested bringing back firing squads, the guillotine, and hangings by noose – a symbol and tool of our country’s sordid legacy of lynching and racial terror.

Trump’s promise to expand the death penalty magnifies the systemic inequities that already plague our capital punishment system. The federal death penalty, like state capital punishment systems, is error prone, racially-biased, and a drain on public resources. More than half of those under federal death sentence in 2024 are people of color, some of whom were convicted by all-white juries. People with serious mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities, brain damage, and histories of trauma are also overrepresented on death rows across the country, including the federal row. Additionally, as long as the death penalty exists, we risk executing innocent people, as evidenced by the 200 people who have been sentenced to death and exonerated since 1973.

In 2020, Biden made history as the first president to openly oppose the death penalty. Under his leadership, the Department of Justice (DOJ) acknowledged the death penalty’s disparate impact on people of color as well as the staggering number of people who have been sentenced to death and, subsequently, exonerated over the past five decades. Though Biden stopped short of acting on his promise to secure an end to capital punishment, he can still save lives and help build a legacy rooted in racial justice by commuting all federal death sentences to life in prison.

---

Why It Matters

Studies show that the death penalty does not keep our communities safer. In fact, research has consistently shown that the death penalty does not deter homicides and that in states that homicides are lower in states that do not have the death penalty.

Trump has consistently ignored these facts. Instead, during his last term, he went on a killing spree and rapidly executed 13 men in quick succession without regard for serious miscarriages of justice. Of the 13 people Trump executed in his last term, two were Black men sentenced as teenagers, one was a woman with mental illness who had survived a lifetime of horrific sexual abuse and torture, another was a man with intellectual disabilities, and there was also a 67-year-old man whose Alzheimer’s disease left him unaware of the reason he was sentenced to die. A majority of the 13 executed were people of color, including seven Black men and one Native American man.

These executions, particularly of people with mental illness and intellectual disability, demonstrate that no amount of procedure eliminates the fundamental flaws of the death penalty.

---

Our Roadmap

The ACLU is calling on President Biden to commute the sentences of all people on federal death row before he leaves office. Commuting federal death sentences will redress the legacy of racial bias inherent to capital punishment and make Trump’s brutal plans for another killing spree impossible. If Biden does this he’ll not only take away Trump’s power to oversee another execution, but he’ll also help set the U.S. on a different course. By setting an example of empathy and a willingness to root out injustice, he can pave the way for future administrations to build on his legacy and finally end capital punishment.

Our work is not confined to federal commutation efforts. The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and usual punishment, including Trump’s proposals to expand the application of the death penalty to non-homicide crimes like drug trafficking and to use methods like hanging or the guillotine. The ACLUis ready on day one to challenge inhumane death penalty expansion efforts and any attempts to return to regressive killing methods.

At the state-level, the ACLU will build on our ongoing work against the death penalty. We’ll continue our litigation in states like Kansas and North Carolina under laws that are more protective than the U.S. Constitution — like state racial justice acts and constitutions — to invalidate the death penalty based on its racist administration, including in the selection of jury members.

---

What Our Experts Say

“The death penalty is a morally-bankrupt and inescapably racist institution. President Biden came into office committing to abolishing the federal death penalty because of its fundamental flaws. Commuting the federal row is the way he can honor that commitment, and prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice.” — Yasmin Cader, ACLU deputy legal director and the director of the Trone Center for Justice and Equality.”

---

What You Can Do Today

President Biden can commute all federal death sentences before his time as president ends, saving lives, preventing an irreversible miscarriage of justice, and building a legacy rooted in racial justice and compassion. Urge him to do so today.

Published November 14, 2024 at 05:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/sWxMmOd

ACLU: In Trump Country, Ballot Measures Safeguard Abortion Rights

In Trump Country, Ballot Measures Safeguard Abortion Rights

In the final weeks of the election, Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party focused their campaign efforts on abortion rights, particularly in key swing states. While those efforts did not secure Harris a win, in the 10 states where abortion rights were on the ballot, seven voted to safeguard abortion rights in their state constitutions.

Among those seven states, in Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and Montana — where President-elect Donald Trump won — abortion ballot measures definitively passed. In many cases, the ballot measures were more popular than Trump. While these red state wins indicate just how popular abortion rights are among even conservative-leaning voters, wins in blue and purple states, including Maryland, Colorado and New York, show that reproductive freedom continues to be an issue that defies party lines.

Abortion Rights Win in Trump Country

Kohar/ACLU

Thirteen states currently have total abortion bans in effect, but Missouri was the first state to enforce its ban, taking action mere minutes after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Missourians, who voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and in 2024, this year passed Amendment 3 to end the state's total abortion ban, which was one of the strictest in the country. Amendment 3 ensures that decisions about Missourians’ reproductive health care — including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care — can be made by patients with their health care providers, not politicians.

The ACLU, ACLU of Missouri and its partners led this ballot measure and, the day after it passed, we again joined with partners to file a lawsuit on behalf of Planned Parenthood to implement the amendment and urgently restore access to care in the state. Krysten Vaughn, the community engagement associate at the ACLU of Missouri, saw firsthand just how popular abortion rights are in her red state. While canvassing for Amendment 3, she spoke to a mother who was thrilled that she and her husband could vote for Amendment 3 to protect their family.

She also knocked on the door of an elderly man who said his wife had waited an hour in line to vote yes on the amendment. “He was very enthusiastic and even said ‘bless you all for the work you’ve been doing,’” Vaughn said.

Like Missouri, Montana voters have supported Trump in the past three elections. Montana’s Supreme Court, however, has a strong precedent protecting abortion rights. As we saw with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, court opinions can change if the court’s makeup changes. That’s why, this election cycle, voters chose to safeguard an explicit right to abortion in their constitution and passed Constitutional Initiative 128 by more than 15 points. This initiative permanently secures the right to make and carry out decisions about pregnancy and abortion in the state constitution. The ACLU of Montana was a driving force behind the ballot measure, uplifting the overwhelming support for abortion rights in deep Trump country.

Khadija Davis, a political strategist with the ACLU of Montana, spoke to Montanans about why this ballot measure was personal. Davis saw people drive hundreds of miles, endure tough weather, spend long hours volunteering, and make phone calls to mobilize their communities to vote for their reproductive rights. While phone banking, Davis met women who shared their experiences from decades ago, before Roe, who said they refused to go back – they were voting for a better future for their children.

“You could feel the passion and compassion people had for one another, and this campaign,” Davis said. “When I was at the rally in Helena, people were crying, hugging, and sharing joy. They made signs, dressed in matching shirts, and came out to build community around hope.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Montana not only supported the ballot measure, we also invested in Montana’s Supreme Court race to educate voters on candidate positions on civil liberties and rights. As a result, the pro-civil liberty majority was preserved on the state Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court will now determine how the ballot measure is implemented and the ACLU will work to hold it accountable for enforcing this vital protection.

Red State Near Misses and Purple State Wins Show Power of Abortion at the Polls

In the Southwest, Arizona has also aggressively restricted abortion access for decades, imposing a 15-week ban on abortion after Roe was overturned and almost reinstating an 1864 total abortion ban. Given the opportunity to change this, a majority of voters — almost 62 percent — voted yes on Proposition 139, which enshrined the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. With more than half the vote, the ballot measure passed with a wider margin than Trump’s win.

Harrison Redmond, a community organizer at the ACLU or Arizona, was proud to have the opportunity to work on this ballot measure so that all Arizonans, including his younger sister, can live in a state that respects their civil rights and liberties. Redmond spoke with countless volunteers and supporters over the last year who wanted the same thing as him: equal rights for the people in their lives who can become pregnant.

“Arizonans made it clear that they don’t want the government interfering with important, personal health care decisions about abortion. Passing Prop. 139 is a huge step that will ensure people in our community get the care they need,” Redmond said.

In the East, while the abortion ballot measure didn’t win in Florida, it came close with 57 percent of voters supporting Amendment 4, which would have prohibited laws restricting abortion before fetal viability or when necessary to protect a pregnant person’s health. Unfortunately, the state’s undemocratic 60 percent threshold for passing a ballot initiative kept this vital right from being restored. That barrier, combined with deceptive tactics from Gov. Ron DeSantis, including a state-run, taxpayer-funded campaign to deceive voters as well as threats to petition signers and TV stations, proved too much to overcome.

Blue States Lead on Securing Abortion Rights in the Absence of Federal Protections

Trump lost some blue states, like Massachusetts, by much smaller margins than he did in 2016 or 2020, indicating a shift in voter preferences in so-called Democratic strongholds. Despite these shifts, two blue states, New York and Maryland, voted to enshrine abortion rights into state law.

In New York, the Equal Rights Amendment, or Prop 1, passed with 62 percent of the vote. The amendment protects against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

In Maryland, 75 percent of voters said yes to Question 1, which confirms an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom. While both Maryland and New York already had abortion rights’ protections in state statute, Prop 1 and Question 1 add another layer of more durable protections.

Across the Country, the Fight Continues

The ACLU is building a firewall for freedom to help state and local governments protect our rights always, especially in the face of federal abuses. Our reproductive freedom firewall work includes continuing to work with local partners on abortion rights ballot measures since the fall of Roe v. Wade. But we know passing these ballot initiatives are just the first step.

In 2022, the ACLU was a driving force behind the successful abortion rights measure in Michigan. As a next step, just as we have in Montana, we wanted to make sure that the will of the people was effectively carried out through judicial interpretation of the measure, which often falls to the highest court in the state. To bolster that abortion rights victory, in 2024, the ACLU Voter Education Fund spent $2 million on voter education around Michigan’s Supreme Court candidates to help educate voters on the role of the court on this issue.

While we are very encouraged by the successes we’ve seen, passing ballot measures to ensure reproductive rights is not a holistic solution. Only half of the states even allow citizen-initiated ballot measures. And, across the country, one in three women of reproductive age currently live in states where abortion is banned. We need a nationwide solution to this public health crisis, including federal-level protections for abortion and reproductive health care.

The voters have spoken loud and clear. Across the country, Americans do not want to see abortion banned. At the ACLU we’re ready to fight to protect the will of the people. Already, we’ve vowed to block any attempts by the upcoming Trump administration to weaponize the Comstock Act to effectively ban abortion nationwide or to take medication abortion off the market. And we won’t stop there. Any attempt to restrict our reproductive freedom will be met with the full force of the ACLU.

Published November 13, 2024 at 03:16AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vBUxP46

ACLU: In Trump Country, Ballot Measures Safeguard Abortion Rights

In Trump Country, Ballot Measures Safeguard Abortion Rights

In the final weeks of the election, Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party focused their campaign efforts on abortion rights, particularly in key swing states. While those efforts did not secure Harris a win, in the 10 states where abortion rights were on the ballot, seven voted to safeguard abortion rights in their state constitutions.

Among those seven states, in Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and Montana — where President-elect Donald Trump won — abortion ballot measures definitively passed. In many cases, the ballot measures were more popular than Trump. While these red state wins indicate just how popular abortion rights are among even conservative-leaning voters, wins in blue and purple states, including Maryland, Colorado and New York, show that reproductive freedom continues to be an issue that defies party lines.

Abortion Rights Win in Trump Country

Kohar/ACLU

Thirteen states currently have total abortion bans in effect, but Missouri was the first state to enforce its ban, taking action mere minutes after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Missourians, who voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and in 2024, this year passed Amendment 3 to end the state's total abortion ban, which was one of the strictest in the country. Amendment 3 ensures that decisions about Missourians’ reproductive health care — including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care — can be made by patients with their health care providers, not politicians.

The ACLU, ACLU of Missouri and its partners led this ballot measure and, the day after it passed, we again joined with partners to file a lawsuit on behalf of Planned Parenthood to implement the amendment and urgently restore access to care in the state. Krysten Vaughn, the community engagement associate at the ACLU of Missouri, saw firsthand just how popular abortion rights are in her red state. While canvassing for Amendment 3, she spoke to a mother who was thrilled that she and her husband could vote for Amendment 3 to protect their family.

She also knocked on the door of an elderly man who said his wife had waited an hour in line to vote yes on the amendment. “He was very enthusiastic and even said ‘bless you all for the work you’ve been doing,’” Vaughn said.

Like Missouri, Montana voters have supported Trump in the past three elections. Montana’s Supreme Court, however, has a strong precedent protecting abortion rights. As we saw with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, court opinions can change if the court’s makeup changes. That’s why, this election cycle, voters chose to safeguard an explicit right to abortion in their constitution and passed Constitutional Initiative 128 by more than 15 points. This initiative permanently secures the right to make and carry out decisions about pregnancy and abortion in the state constitution. The ACLU of Montana was a driving force behind the ballot measure, uplifting the overwhelming support for abortion rights in deep Trump country.

Khadija Davis, a political strategist with the ACLU of Montana, spoke to Montanans about why this ballot measure was personal. Davis saw people drive hundreds of miles, endure tough weather, spend long hours volunteering, and make phone calls to mobilize their communities to vote for their reproductive rights. While phone banking, Davis met women who shared their experiences from decades ago, before Roe, who said they refused to go back – they were voting for a better future for their children.

“You could feel the passion and compassion people had for one another, and this campaign,” Davis said. “When I was at the rally in Helena, people were crying, hugging, and sharing joy. They made signs, dressed in matching shirts, and came out to build community around hope.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Montana not only supported the ballot measure, we also invested in Montana’s Supreme Court race to educate voters on candidate positions on civil liberties and rights. As a result, the pro-civil liberty majority was preserved on the state Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court will now determine how the ballot measure is implemented and the ACLU will work to hold it accountable for enforcing this vital protection.

Red State Near Misses and Purple State Wins Show Power of Abortion at the Polls

In the Southwest, Arizona has also aggressively restricted abortion access for decades, imposing a 15-week ban on abortion after Roe was overturned and almost reinstating an 1864 total abortion ban. Given the opportunity to change this, a majority of voters — almost 62 percent — voted yes on Proposition 139, which enshrined the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. With more than half the vote, the ballot measure passed with a wider margin than Trump’s win.

Harrison Redmond, a community organizer at the ACLU or Arizona, was proud to have the opportunity to work on this ballot measure so that all Arizonans, including his younger sister, can live in a state that respects their civil rights and liberties. Redmond spoke with countless volunteers and supporters over the last year who wanted the same thing as him: equal rights for the people in their lives who can become pregnant.

“Arizonans made it clear that they don’t want the government interfering with important, personal health care decisions about abortion. Passing Prop. 139 is a huge step that will ensure people in our community get the care they need,” Redmond said.

In the East, while the abortion ballot measure didn’t win in Florida, it came close with 57 percent of voters supporting Amendment 4, which would have prohibited laws restricting abortion before fetal viability or when necessary to protect a pregnant person’s health. Unfortunately, the state’s undemocratic 60 percent threshold for passing a ballot initiative kept this vital right from being restored. That barrier, combined with deceptive tactics from Gov. Ron DeSantis, including a state-run, taxpayer-funded campaign to deceive voters as well as threats to petition signers and TV stations, proved too much to overcome.

Blue States Lead on Securing Abortion Rights in the Absence of Federal Protections

Trump lost some blue states, like Massachusetts, by much smaller margins than he did in 2016 or 2020, indicating a shift in voter preferences in so-called Democratic strongholds. Despite these shifts, two blue states, New York and Maryland, voted to enshrine abortion rights into state law.

In New York, the Equal Rights Amendment, or Prop 1, passed with 62 percent of the vote. The amendment protects against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

In Maryland, 75 percent of voters said yes to Question 1, which confirms an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom. While both Maryland and New York already had abortion rights’ protections in state statute, Prop 1 and Question 1 add another layer of more durable protections.

Across the Country, the Fight Continues

The ACLU is building a firewall for freedom to help state and local governments protect our rights always, especially in the face of federal abuses. Our reproductive freedom firewall work includes continuing to work with local partners on abortion rights ballot measures since the fall of Roe v. Wade. But we know passing these ballot initiatives are just the first step.

In 2022, the ACLU was a driving force behind the successful abortion rights measure in Michigan. As a next step, just as we have in Montana, we wanted to make sure that the will of the people was effectively carried out through judicial interpretation of the measure, which often falls to the highest court in the state. To bolster that abortion rights victory, in 2024, the ACLU Voter Education Fund spent $2 million on voter education around Michigan’s Supreme Court candidates to help educate voters on the role of the court on this issue.

While we are very encouraged by the successes we’ve seen, passing ballot measures to ensure reproductive rights is not a holistic solution. Only half of the states even allow citizen-initiated ballot measures. And, across the country, one in three women of reproductive age currently live in states where abortion is banned. We need a nationwide solution to this public health crisis, including federal-level protections for abortion and reproductive health care.

The voters have spoken loud and clear. Across the country, Americans do not want to see abortion banned. At the ACLU we’re ready to fight to protect the will of the people. Already, we’ve vowed to block any attempts by the upcoming Trump administration to weaponize the Comstock Act to effectively ban abortion nationwide or to take medication abortion off the market. And we won’t stop there. Any attempt to restrict our reproductive freedom will be met with the full force of the ACLU.

Published November 12, 2024 at 09:46PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/cMUZui1