ACLU: Securing Tenants’ Right to Counsel is Critical to Fighting Mass Evictions

Securing Tenants’ Right to Counsel is Critical to Fighting Mass Evictions

On election night, voters in Boulder, Colorado delivered a critical win in the fight for housing justice. By a margin of 59-41 percent, voters passed No Eviction Without Representation (NEWR) — a critical measure that will ensure all Boulder tenants who are facing the terrifying, complex process that is an eviction proceeding will be provided with free legal representation. NEWR also establishes a rental assistance fund and an education process that will notify Boulder renters of their housing rights.

Protections like those afforded by NEWR are always important, but they are particularly crucial in the midst of a devastating global pandemic. The economic consequences of the pandemic have cost millions of people across the country their jobs and the ability to pay the rent — leaving millions of renters with the added threat of eviction and losing their homes.

The odds are stacked heavily against tenants who are taken to  eviction court. Less than 2 percent of renters in Boulder who are summoned to court are able to find or afford legal representation. This is not surprising considering many are facing eviction because of unforeseen circumstances or financial stress that prevents them from being able to afford their rent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of landlords are armed with legal representation and the protection of professional organizations that lobby on their behalf. Many renters don’t even get to the courthouse because of the severe financial burdens they already bear.

With the passage of NEWR, Boulder becomes the seventh city in the country with a right to counsel program. Other cities that have adopted right to counsel measures in eviction proceedings — including New York City and San Francisco — have seen reductions in evictions. In securing a universal right to counsel in eviction proceedings, NEWR will ensure that renters have the tools and knowledge they need to safeguard their housing rights and help balance power between landlords and tenants.

Where does the fight for housing justice in the form of right to counsel head now?

On Tuesday, the Baltimore City Council will hold a hearing on a right to counsel bill. Passage of this legislation is critically important. Baltimore currently has one of the highest eviction rates in the United States. Approximately 70,000 eviction orders are issued in Baltimore every year, resulting in thousands of evictions. Unsurprisingly, 96 percent of landlords are represented by a lawyer in eviction cases in the city while the same is true for just 1 percent of renters. A recent report found that a right to counsel program like NEWR in Baltimore could cut evictions by 92 percent. Furthermore, the report estimates that every dollar Baltimore spends on providing free legal representation in eviction cases would result in more than $3 in savings on social safety net resources.

Ending mass evictions is a key racial and gender justice priority. Due to decades of inequalities in our housing system, communities of color and low-income women feel the impacts of eviction the most — Black women in particular. The numbers say it all: Black women are more than twice as likely to have evictions filed against them as white people. Less than half of Black and Latinx families own their homes compared to 73 percent of white families. Longstanding systemic income and wealth inequality also put communities of color at higher risk of eviction. 

The harms of eviction also run deep — having an eviction on your record can make it difficult to secure future housing since some landlords will not consider a prospective renter with a past eviction. Eviction marginalizes and stigmatizes already vulnerable groups with limited financial means.

With the federal eviction moratorium set to lift before the end of the year and no federal emergency rent relief in sight, it is paramount for Congress, states, and cities to act. As the voters of Boulder showed us on Election Day, right to counsel programs are one important step that can be taken to keep people in their homes. We need action to stop mass evictions during the pandemic and beyond. All people — regardless of their circumstances or background — should have access to safe and stable housing.

Published November 10, 2020 at 01:50AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3kfB7xe

ACLU: Securing Tenants’ Right to Counsel is Critical to Fighting Mass Evictions

Securing Tenants’ Right to Counsel is Critical to Fighting Mass Evictions

On election night, voters in Boulder, Colorado delivered a critical win in the fight for housing justice. By a margin of 59-41 percent, voters passed No Eviction Without Representation (NEWR) — a critical measure that will ensure all Boulder tenants who are facing the terrifying, complex process that is an eviction proceeding will be provided with free legal representation. NEWR also establishes a rental assistance fund and an education process that will notify Boulder renters of their housing rights.

Protections like those afforded by NEWR are always important, but they are particularly crucial in the midst of a devastating global pandemic. The economic consequences of the pandemic have cost millions of people across the country their jobs and the ability to pay the rent — leaving millions of renters with the added threat of eviction and losing their homes.

The odds are stacked heavily against tenants who are taken to  eviction court. Less than 2 percent of renters in Boulder who are summoned to court are able to find or afford legal representation. This is not surprising considering many are facing eviction because of unforeseen circumstances or financial stress that prevents them from being able to afford their rent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of landlords are armed with legal representation and the protection of professional organizations that lobby on their behalf. Many renters don’t even get to the courthouse because of the severe financial burdens they already bear.

With the passage of NEWR, Boulder becomes the seventh city in the country with a right to counsel program. Other cities that have adopted right to counsel measures in eviction proceedings — including New York City and San Francisco — have seen reductions in evictions. In securing a universal right to counsel in eviction proceedings, NEWR will ensure that renters have the tools and knowledge they need to safeguard their housing rights and help balance power between landlords and tenants.

Where does the fight for housing justice in the form of right to counsel head now?

On Tuesday, the Baltimore City Council will hold a hearing on a right to counsel bill. Passage of this legislation is critically important. Baltimore currently has one of the highest eviction rates in the United States. Approximately 70,000 eviction orders are issued in Baltimore every year, resulting in thousands of evictions. Unsurprisingly, 96 percent of landlords are represented by a lawyer in eviction cases in the city while the same is true for just 1 percent of renters. A recent report found that a right to counsel program like NEWR in Baltimore could cut evictions by 92 percent. Furthermore, the report estimates that every dollar Baltimore spends on providing free legal representation in eviction cases would result in more than $3 in savings on social safety net resources.

Ending mass evictions is a key racial and gender justice priority. Due to decades of inequalities in our housing system, communities of color and low-income women feel the impacts of eviction the most — Black women in particular. The numbers say it all: Black women are more than twice as likely to have evictions filed against them as white people. Less than half of Black and Latinx families own their homes compared to 73 percent of white families. Longstanding systemic income and wealth inequality also put communities of color at higher risk of eviction. 

The harms of eviction also run deep — having an eviction on your record can make it difficult to secure future housing since some landlords will not consider a prospective renter with a past eviction. Eviction marginalizes and stigmatizes already vulnerable groups with limited financial means.

With the federal eviction moratorium set to lift before the end of the year and no federal emergency rent relief in sight, it is paramount for Congress, states, and cities to act. As the voters of Boulder showed us on Election Day, right to counsel programs are one important step that can be taken to keep people in their homes. We need action to stop mass evictions during the pandemic and beyond. All people — regardless of their circumstances or background — should have access to safe and stable housing.

Published November 9, 2020 at 08:20PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3kfB7xe

Cameroon : Request for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cameroon

Cameroon : Request for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cameroon
Published November 09, 2020 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Affordable Care Act — and With It, Our Civil Rights — Are Under Attack

The Affordable Care Act — and With It, Our Civil Rights — Are Under Attack

Ask a dozen civil rights lawyers to name the great civil rights laws of the last 100 years, and you’ll get a dozen answers. Some might name the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark law which ended segregation in public places and barred discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin at work and in other public places. Others might point to the Fair Housing Act, which took aim at dismantling entrenched residential segregation and fighting housing discrimination. Still others might highlight the Americans with Disabilities Act, which paved the way for a more accessible world.

What few people might include in the list, but should, is the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the law that made health insurance — and with it, health care itself — accessible to millions for the first time. It earns its place as a great civil rights law for several reasons: It bars certain forms of discrimination; it begins to address effects of longstanding discrimination; and by providing coverage for the health care all people need, it enables the freedoms other civil rights laws aim to protect. Simply put, it is not possible to fully participate in the economic, social, and civic life of our nation without stable health coverage. 

But the Affordable Care Act is now imperiled. This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in California v. Texas — a case that puts this critical law in jeopardy of being struck down in its entirety. While most legal scholars think such a ruling unlikely, any decision striking the law would have devastating ramifications for the civil liberties advancements that the ACA has provided. And it would have particularly cruel and deadly consequences in the midst of a pandemic and recession. Dismantling the ACA now would exacerbate the longstanding, systemic disparities in access to health care, economic opportunities, and other resources faced by Black, Latinx, and disabled people in this country — disparities that are now approaching epic proportions in light of the pandemic.   

The Affordable Care Act made huge advancements for many groups of people to whom stable health insurance and health care were often denied, whether because of express discrimination or the effects of discrimination.
 
Women: The ACA bars sex discrimination, full stop. This means, for example, that at long last insurers may no longer charge women higher rates. The ACA as implemented covers care long excluded from insurance coverage that was seen as exclusively women’s care: mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, contraception coverage and counseling, lactation support, and prenatal care. These forms of discrimination had material consequences. Before passage of the Affordable Care Act, women were estimated to spend 68 percent more than men in out of pocket health care costs. The ACA takes aim at discrimination that perpetuates gender inequity, including the discrimination in health care that perpetuates gender disparities in wealth.

LGBTQ people: The ACA’s bar on sex discrimination also means that LGBTQ people can’t be subject to discrimination in federally funded institutions, public health care programs, or by insurance companies. The ACA eliminates barriers that many LGBTQ people previously faced in receiving health care — a crucial step toward ensuring health care is accessible to all — regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
 
People of color: The ACA makes important strides to address racial injustice in health care as well. It bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions, a provision critical to ensuring that those who are sick — and thus most in need of health insurance — aren’t effectively barred from accessing it. While this provision is important to people of all races, it is also an essential part of beginning to redress the health disparities that reflect the legacy of race discrimination in the country. This is evident in  the higher rates of hypertension among Black people, for example, and the disproportionate rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths among Black and Latinx communities. 

The data is striking: Because of the ACA, between 2013 and 2017, the coverage gap between Black and white Americans declined from 11 to 5.3 percentage points. Similarly, during the same period, the coverage gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites dropped from 25.4 to 16.6 percentage points. Additionally, the ACA expanded Medicaid for people whose income is below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. In short, the ACA has helped make important strides in reducing racial, ethnic and economic disparities in in access to health care and coverage. 

People with disabilities: The ACA has been a life saver for people with disabilities. It protects against coverage limitations based on preexisting conditions or lifetime limits, and guarantees coverage of services for mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. It provides access to long-term, home-based health care, which can mean the difference between institutionalization and independence for people with disabilities. And it expressly precludes discrimination in access to health care based on disability.

People experiencing poverty: The ACA also expanded Medicaid for people up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level — although not every state availed itself of the option, despite its literal life-giving opportunities. Prior to the ACA’s passage, Medicaid eligibility for parents was limited to those with very low incomes (often below 50 percent of the poverty level), and adults without dependent children were ineligible under federal rules, regardless of their income level, according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The ACA is part of the path to equity — remedying systems of oppression and discrimination — that runs to the core of living or dying, particularly during the time of COVID-19. As we said in our 2012 brief, the ACA “advances the twin goals of liberty and equal protection.” The ACA is worth fighting for. Our civil liberties and civil rights are worth fighting for.

Published November 9, 2020 at 10:05PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2InsMuB

ACLU: Putting Rap Lyrics on Trial is a Violation of Free Speech

Putting Rap Lyrics on Trial is a Violation of Free Speech

If song lyrics could be used as evidence in criminal trials, many of the most famous artists in history would be in serious trouble. Bob Marley sings “I Shot the Sheriff.” The Talking Heads’ biggest hit is “Psycho Killer.” The opening lines to Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” are “Mama, just killed a man.” Fortunately for these artists, artistic expression is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. 

However, some art forms are seen differently by many courts. Rap music, in trial after trial, has been treated as inherently incriminating. In Tennessee, an aspiring Knoxville rapper, Christopher Bassett, was convicted of the 2015 murder of Zaevion Dobson. At trial, the state showed the jury a rap video featuring Bassett as evidence against him, despite the fact that the videos were recorded months before the murder and make no mention of the victim. Prosecutors argued that Bassett’s sometimes violent and graphic imagery was a confession in song. 

“Double O,” the song they claim indicated the defendant’s gang affiliation and appetite for violent retribution, includes lyrics like: “We all gon’ blow / Till we all ten toes / To the sky.”

To understand lyrics like these, they must be put in context. Bassett’s music is “drill rap,” a genre characterized by themes of gun violence, maintenance of neighborhood boundaries, and the tragedy of lives lost or taken. Nobody familiar with drill rap would raise an eyebrow at Bassett’s lyrics — they reflect the genre and its frequent use of the trope of a protagonist engaged in criminal activity. The actions described in the lyrics may sound violent, but the lyrics themselves are protected by the First Amendment. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to use protected speech as evidence when that speech is irrelevant to the case. This precedent was established in the 2013 case Dawson v. Delaware, in which the state tried to introduce the defendant’s Aryan Brotherhood tattoo as evidence in a murder trial. But because both the defendant and the victim were white, the tattoo — artistic expression protected by the First Amendment — was irrelevant. Dawson set a heightened evidentiary standard when it comes to art forms and other protected speech, whether a tattoo or a song. “Double O” does not meet this standard.

The state claims that Bassett’s lyrics prove gang affiliation, and they proposed a theory that the murder was gang-related. But it was never proven that either the victim or Bassett were actually in gangs. This accusation hasn’t been proven, and nor is it relevant. And Bassett was not charged with any gang-related offenses. The music video was entirely irrelevant to any issue before the court.

Rap is not the only genre of music with lyrics about crimes. Country music in particular frequently features lyrics glorifying criminal behavior. We see it in Nashville “outlaw” musicians like Johnny Cash, who sang he “shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” We see it in Appalachian “murder ballads,” like Dolly Parton’s “Banks of the Ohio,” which is about a jilted lover stabbing a victim in the heart. But country lyrics are understood to be fiction, not criminal evidence. In almost every case that used music lyrics as evidence, the defendant has been Black or Latinx. Bias against rap is merely thinly-veiled bias against Black and Latinx people. 

Tennessee’s use of “Double O” lyrics as evidence at trial is not only an illegal violation of constitutional free speech and free association rights, but would discourage artistic expression in the future. This is why we filed an amicus brief last week in Bassett’s appeal, challenging the admission of the rap video as evidence and asserting his right to free speech. If this precedent is allowed to stand, no one who has ever spit a rhyme is safe.

Published November 9, 2020 at 09:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2IoAYub

ACLU: The Affordable Care Act — and With It, Our Civil Rights — Are Under Attack

The Affordable Care Act — and With It, Our Civil Rights — Are Under Attack

Ask a dozen civil rights lawyers to name the great civil rights laws of the last 100 years, and you’ll get a dozen answers. Some might name the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark law which ended segregation in public places and barred discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin at work and in other public places. Others might point to the Fair Housing Act, which took aim at dismantling entrenched residential segregation and fighting housing discrimination. Still others might highlight the Americans with Disabilities Act, which paved the way for a more accessible world.

What few people might include in the list, but should, is the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the law that made health insurance — and with it, health care itself — accessible to millions for the first time. It earns its place as a great civil rights law for several reasons: It bars certain forms of discrimination; it begins to address effects of longstanding discrimination; and by providing coverage for the health care all people need, it enables the freedoms other civil rights laws aim to protect. Simply put, it is not possible to fully participate in the economic, social, and civic life of our nation without stable health coverage. 

But the Affordable Care Act is now imperiled. This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in California v. Texas — a case that puts this critical law in jeopardy of being struck down in its entirety. While most legal scholars think such a ruling unlikely, any decision striking the law would have devastating ramifications for the civil liberties advancements that the ACA has provided. And it would have particularly cruel and deadly consequences in the midst of a pandemic and recession. Dismantling the ACA now would exacerbate the longstanding, systemic disparities in access to health care, economic opportunities, and other resources faced by Black, Latinx, and disabled people in this country — disparities that are now approaching epic proportions in light of the pandemic.   

The Affordable Care Act made huge advancements for many groups of people to whom stable health insurance and health care were often denied, whether because of express discrimination or the effects of discrimination.
 
Women: The ACA bars sex discrimination, full stop. This means, for example, that at long last insurers may no longer charge women higher rates. The ACA as implemented covers care long excluded from insurance coverage that was seen as exclusively women’s care: mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, contraception coverage and counseling, lactation support, and prenatal care. These forms of discrimination had material consequences. Before passage of the Affordable Care Act, women were estimated to spend 68 percent more than men in out of pocket health care costs. The ACA takes aim at discrimination that perpetuates gender inequity, including the discrimination in health care that perpetuates gender disparities in wealth.

LGBTQ people: The ACA’s bar on sex discrimination also means that LGBTQ people can’t be subject to discrimination in federally funded institutions, public health care programs, or by insurance companies. The ACA eliminates barriers that many LGBTQ people previously faced in receiving health care — a crucial step toward ensuring health care is accessible to all — regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
 
People of color: The ACA makes important strides to address racial injustice in health care as well. It bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions, a provision critical to ensuring that those who are sick — and thus most in need of health insurance — aren’t effectively barred from accessing it. While this provision is important to people of all races, it is also an essential part of beginning to redress the health disparities that reflect the legacy of race discrimination in the country. This is evident in  the higher rates of hypertension among Black people, for example, and the disproportionate rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths among Black and Latinx communities. 

The data is striking: Because of the ACA, between 2013 and 2017, the coverage gap between Black and white Americans declined from 11 to 5.3 percentage points. Similarly, during the same period, the coverage gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites dropped from 25.4 to 16.6 percentage points. Additionally, the ACA expanded Medicaid for people whose income is below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. In short, the ACA has helped make important strides in reducing racial, ethnic and economic disparities in in access to health care and coverage. 

People with disabilities: The ACA has been a life saver for people with disabilities. It protects against coverage limitations based on preexisting conditions or lifetime limits, and guarantees coverage of services for mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. It provides access to long-term, home-based health care, which can mean the difference between institutionalization and independence for people with disabilities. And it expressly precludes discrimination in access to health care based on disability.

People experiencing poverty: The ACA also expanded Medicaid for people up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level — although not every state availed itself of the option, despite its literal life-giving opportunities. Prior to the ACA’s passage, Medicaid eligibility for parents was limited to those with very low incomes (often below 50 percent of the poverty level), and adults without dependent children were ineligible under federal rules, regardless of their income level, according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The ACA is part of the path to equity — remedying systems of oppression and discrimination — that runs to the core of living or dying, particularly during the time of COVID-19. As we said in our 2012 brief, the ACA “advances the twin goals of liberty and equal protection.” The ACA is worth fighting for. Our civil liberties and civil rights are worth fighting for.

Published November 9, 2020 at 04:35PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2InsMuB

ACLU: Putting Rap Lyrics on Trial is a Violation of Free Speech

Putting Rap Lyrics on Trial is a Violation of Free Speech

If song lyrics could be used as evidence in criminal trials, many of the most famous artists in history would be in serious trouble. Bob Marley sings “I Shot the Sheriff.” The Talking Heads’ biggest hit is “Psycho Killer.” The opening lines to Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” are “Mama, just killed a man.” Fortunately for these artists, artistic expression is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. 

However, some art forms are seen differently by many courts. Rap music, in trial after trial, has been treated as inherently incriminating. In Tennessee, an aspiring Knoxville rapper, Christopher Bassett, was convicted of the 2015 murder of Zaevion Dobson. At trial, the state showed the jury a rap video featuring Bassett as evidence against him, despite the fact that the videos were recorded months before the murder and make no mention of the victim. Prosecutors argued that Bassett’s sometimes violent and graphic imagery was a confession in song. 

“Double O,” the song they claim indicated the defendant’s gang affiliation and appetite for violent retribution, includes lyrics like: “We all gon’ blow / Till we all ten toes / To the sky.”

To understand lyrics like these, they must be put in context. Bassett’s music is “drill rap,” a genre characterized by themes of gun violence, maintenance of neighborhood boundaries, and the tragedy of lives lost or taken. Nobody familiar with drill rap would raise an eyebrow at Bassett’s lyrics — they reflect the genre and its frequent use of the trope of a protagonist engaged in criminal activity. The actions described in the lyrics may sound violent, but the lyrics themselves are protected by the First Amendment. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to use protected speech as evidence when that speech is irrelevant to the case. This precedent was established in the 2013 case Dawson v. Delaware, in which the state tried to introduce the defendant’s Aryan Brotherhood tattoo as evidence in a murder trial. But because both the defendant and the victim were white, the tattoo — artistic expression protected by the First Amendment — was irrelevant. Dawson set a heightened evidentiary standard when it comes to art forms and other protected speech, whether a tattoo or a song. “Double O” does not meet this standard.

The state claims that Bassett’s lyrics prove gang affiliation, and they proposed a theory that the murder was gang-related. But it was never proven that either the victim or Bassett were actually in gangs. This accusation hasn’t been proven, and nor is it relevant. And Bassett was not charged with any gang-related offenses. The music video was entirely irrelevant to any issue before the court.

Rap is not the only genre of music with lyrics about crimes. Country music in particular frequently features lyrics glorifying criminal behavior. We see it in Nashville “outlaw” musicians like Johnny Cash, who sang he “shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” We see it in Appalachian “murder ballads,” like Dolly Parton’s “Banks of the Ohio,” which is about a jilted lover stabbing a victim in the heart. But country lyrics are understood to be fiction, not criminal evidence. In almost every case that used music lyrics as evidence, the defendant has been Black or Latinx. Bias against rap is merely thinly-veiled bias against Black and Latinx people. 

Tennessee’s use of “Double O” lyrics as evidence at trial is not only an illegal violation of constitutional free speech and free association rights, but would discourage artistic expression in the future. This is why we filed an amicus brief last week in Bassett’s appeal, challenging the admission of the rap video as evidence and asserting his right to free speech. If this precedent is allowed to stand, no one who has ever spit a rhyme is safe.

Published November 9, 2020 at 04:06PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2IoAYub