ACLU: Gender-Affirming Care for Veterans is Under Attack. Here's How We're Fighting Back.

Gender-Affirming Care for Veterans is Under Attack. Here's How We're Fighting Back.

Like many transgender people, the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump was a deeply alarming and concerning turn for me in our country’s politics. At the time, I was an active-duty air mechanic in my seventh year of service in the United States Air Force. Unable to organize and protest in the streets — as millions did in the wake of that election and Trump’s disastrous presidency — and following the end of my service, I fought to organize on behalf of the 134,000 transgender veterans like myself with the Transgender American Veterans Association.

For years, transgender veterans have fought for the Department of Veterans Affairs to end its discriminatory restrictions on the forms of gender-affirming care that are provided by VA clinics and covered by VA insurance. But now, political extremists in Congress threaten to undo that progress and defund health care not only for transgender veterans, but for hundreds of thousands of transgender people who benefit from federally-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Transgender people in states across the country have had their health care threatened and their dignity denied by state-level restrictions targeting Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, banning it for transgender people under 18, and using the power of the state to persecute providers that support transgender people. Increasingly, however, these political attacks are going national, led by a bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that would bar any federal funds from going to gender-affirming care, censor information about this care from medical schools and research institutions, and make it a felony for any medical provider to support a transgender person under 18.

Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures

In the last few years states have advanced a record number of bills that attack LGBTQ rights, especially transgender youth. The ACLU is tracking...

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

These same members of Congress have also latched onto the annual budget process as a new battlefield in this war against transgender people. Members of the House of Representatives have shoehorned in amendments into the federal budget that would defund insurance coverage for transgender people of any age in programs like Medicaid and Medicare and, in July, the House passed a version of the budget for Veterans Affairs that would deny myself and transgender veterans like me any access to medical care treating gender dysphoria.

The results of these amendments would be emotionally devastating and physically life-threatening. If cut off from this care, many transgender veterans will be forced to endure the disastrous effects of untreated gender dysphoria, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation as a result of physical changes and effects we know run counter to our gender identity. Support for this care spans the entire mainstream of the medical community, and I can personally attest to the importance of this care to my safety, my dignity, and my freedom to thrive in this world.

It is far from a coincidence these restrictions on my health care and bodily autonomy are being proposed right alongside restrictions on abortion access and support for active-duty recruits who need abortion care. The repeal of Roe v. Wade was the beginning of a slippery slope of human rights violations for transgender people and cisgender people alike. If we only fight issues in the identity we cling to most, we not only negate those parts of ourselves, but neglect the communities in need around us. Our government is actively stripping its citizens of our rights and we are getting what we are due. We are oppressed together; we fight back together.

To help us fight back, I’m urging you to send a message to your member of Congress — regardless of party — to stand up and fight back against these baseless and life-threatening attacks on transgender people’s safety, dignity, and autonomy. I’m proud to organize with TAVA and am consistently amazed at the strength and tenacity of my fellow transgender veterans. But none of us are as strong as all of us, and we need your help to defend equality and freedom for all.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 16, 2023 at 10:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/UE4WFP7

ACLU: Gender-Affirming Care for Veterans is Under Attack. Here's How We're Fighting Back.

Gender-Affirming Care for Veterans is Under Attack. Here's How We're Fighting Back.

Like many transgender people, the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump was a deeply alarming and concerning turn for me in our country’s politics. At the time, I was an active-duty air mechanic in my seventh year of service in the United States Air Force. Unable to organize and protest in the streets — as millions did in the wake of that election and Trump’s disastrous presidency — and following the end of my service, I fought to organize on behalf of the 134,000 transgender veterans like myself with the Transgender American Veterans Association.

For years, transgender veterans have fought for the Department of Veterans Affairs to end its discriminatory restrictions on the forms of gender-affirming care that are provided by VA clinics and covered by VA insurance. But now, political extremists in Congress threaten to undo that progress and defund health care not only for transgender veterans, but for hundreds of thousands of transgender people who benefit from federally-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Transgender people in states across the country have had their health care threatened and their dignity denied by state-level restrictions targeting Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, banning it for transgender people under 18, and using the power of the state to persecute providers that support transgender people. Increasingly, however, these political attacks are going national, led by a bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that would bar any federal funds from going to gender-affirming care, censor information about this care from medical schools and research institutions, and make it a felony for any medical provider to support a transgender person under 18.

Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures

In the last few years states have advanced a record number of bills that attack LGBTQ rights, especially transgender youth. The ACLU is tracking...

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

These same members of Congress have also latched onto the annual budget process as a new battlefield in this war against transgender people. Members of the House of Representatives have shoehorned in amendments into the federal budget that would defund insurance coverage for transgender people of any age in programs like Medicaid and Medicare and, in July, the House passed a version of the budget for Veterans Affairs that would deny myself and transgender veterans like me any access to medical care treating gender dysphoria.

The results of these amendments would be emotionally devastating and physically life-threatening. If cut off from this care, many transgender veterans will be forced to endure the disastrous effects of untreated gender dysphoria, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation as a result of physical changes and effects we know run counter to our gender identity. Support for this care spans the entire mainstream of the medical community, and I can personally attest to the importance of this care to my safety, my dignity, and my freedom to thrive in this world.

It is far from a coincidence these restrictions on my health care and bodily autonomy are being proposed right alongside restrictions on abortion access and support for active-duty recruits who need abortion care. The repeal of Roe v. Wade was the beginning of a slippery slope of human rights violations for transgender people and cisgender people alike. If we only fight issues in the identity we cling to most, we not only negate those parts of ourselves, but neglect the communities in need around us. Our government is actively stripping its citizens of our rights and we are getting what we are due. We are oppressed together; we fight back together.

To help us fight back, I’m urging you to send a message to your member of Congress — regardless of party — to stand up and fight back against these baseless and life-threatening attacks on transgender people’s safety, dignity, and autonomy. I’m proud to organize with TAVA and am consistently amazed at the strength and tenacity of my fellow transgender veterans. But none of us are as strong as all of us, and we need your help to defend equality and freedom for all.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 16, 2023 at 06:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/KQrEcOC

ACLU: Baby Bonds: A Path Toward Prosperity for Future Generations

Baby Bonds: A Path Toward Prosperity for Future Generations

Being born into poverty often determines what the rest of your life looks like — not just for you, but for your kids and the generations that follow. Babies born into poverty face limited opportunities and begin their adult lives at a significant disadvantage. This persistent disparity is a major obstacle to achieving systemic equality.

Systemic Equality: Equal Access, Better Futures

When we have full and equal access to education, jobs, housing, voting rights, and more, better futures are possible.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Wealth inequality in the United States has reached alarming levels, particularly when viewed through the lens of racial disparities. This wealth gap isn’t just about money; it’s about historical and systemic injustices like redlining and discriminatory policies that have plagued marginalized communities for far too long. Currently, the net worth of a white family is eight times greater than that of a Black family. Everyone should have access to meaningful economic opportunities and get the chance to build their financial futures, not just the few who have access to wealth. To confront this pressing issue, we need proactive strategies.

Enter “baby bonds” — a simple yet profound idea, primarily originated and championed by economist Dr. Darrick Hamilton. Imagine every child in America receiving a government-funded savings account at birth, managed by federal, state, or local governments until adulthood. These accounts are designed to provide children with the economic resources needed to begin building long-term economic security and generational wealth — and a pathway out of poverty for millions of babies every year.

The way it works is simple: Babies are automatically enrolled at birth and receive a seed deposit that is income-dependent, meaning that lower-income families receive larger deposits, embodying a targeted, universal policy aimed at reducing wealth inequality. Federal and/or state treasuries would invest and administer the funds, which would grow over time until recipients choose to access them when they become adults. At that point, they can use these funds to pay for higher education, homeownership, or entrepreneurship — three of the most proven ways to build wealth in the U.S.

The impact of baby bonds can be transformative. Baby bonds can break the cycle of poverty and make prosperity achievable for the next generation. If administered nationally, baby bonds could shrink the racial wealth gap from 91 percent to 25 percent. By providing targeted support to lower-income communities, primarily Black and Latine, baby bonds seek to rectify some of the systemic injustices and disadvantages they disproportionately face.

Baby bonds can break the cycle of poverty and make prosperity achievable for the next generation.

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen in the U.S. — and it should be treated as a national emergency. Congress needs to strongly consider creating a national baby bonds program, such as that proposed in the American Opportunity Accounts Act (AOAA) as introduced by Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley. Under the bill, every child born in the U.S. would be provided with a government-funded savings account with seeded and annual deposits based on income. At birth, each child would receive $1,000 with an annual supplement of up to $2,000, with children from the lowest-income households receiving the maximum amount. If the AOAA had been implemented 25 years ago, Black children today would have a median account balance of $27,500, Hispanic children would have $19,800, and white children would have $7,100.

States have already stepped up to the plate. Connecticut led the way and became the first to pass legislation in 2021, providing eligible babies with $3,200 in investment accounts. Washington, D.C. initiated a similar program, with potential funds growing to $25,000 by age 18. In 2022 California followed, offering up to $8,000 to eligible children who have lost a parent to COVID-19 or are in long-term foster care.

And the momentum is growing stronger. This year, eight additional states have considered or proposed baby bond legislation, including New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Nevada, Louisiana, Maryland, and Massachusetts. While eligibility would be universal under the AOAA, only babies born under Medicaid are typically eligible under state legislation, underscoring the need for a national program.

As baby bonds catch fire across the country, it’s clear this idea is resonating with Americans of all backgrounds. A recent national YouGov poll commissioned by the ACLU revealed broad support for establishing baby bond programs. Contrary to assumptions that support might be limited to high-cost living areas, the poll results indicate that people from diverse living environments are in favor of baby bonds. Across racial lines, there is also overwhelming support. Specifically, 73 percent of Black voters, 64 percent of Latine voters, 54 percent of white voters, and 60 percent of AMEMSA and Indigenous voters expressed their endorsement of baby bonds.

This widespread support highlights the policy’s potential to bridge racial disparities and garner support from a diverse range of communities. The most notable finding is that support also spans across the political spectrum. A majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are all in favor of the baby bonds policy. This bipartisan support is particularly noteworthy, given that economic investments of this nature often face partisan opposition.

The ACLU stands firmly in support of baby bonds, recognizing their potential to reshape the landscape of racial and economic justice. It’s time to take a bold step toward a more equitable future, where every child has a chance to thrive, regardless of their family’s economic circumstances — at both the state and federal levels.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 13, 2023 at 11:06PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/uersCBY

ACLU: Baby Bonds: A Path Toward Prosperity for Future Generations

Baby Bonds: A Path Toward Prosperity for Future Generations

Being born into poverty often determines what the rest of your life looks like — not just for you, but for your kids and the generations that follow. Babies born into poverty face limited opportunities and begin their adult lives at a significant disadvantage. This persistent disparity is a major obstacle to achieving systemic equality.

Systemic Equality: Equal Access, Better Futures

When we have full and equal access to education, jobs, housing, voting rights, and more, better futures are possible.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Wealth inequality in the United States has reached alarming levels, particularly when viewed through the lens of racial disparities. This wealth gap isn’t just about money; it’s about historical and systemic injustices like redlining and discriminatory policies that have plagued marginalized communities for far too long. Currently, the net worth of a white family is eight times greater than that of a Black family. Everyone should have access to meaningful economic opportunities and get the chance to build their financial futures, not just the few who have access to wealth. To confront this pressing issue, we need proactive strategies.

Enter “baby bonds” — a simple yet profound idea, primarily originated and championed by economist Dr. Darrick Hamilton. Imagine every child in America receiving a government-funded savings account at birth, managed by federal, state, or local governments until adulthood. These accounts are designed to provide children with the economic resources needed to begin building long-term economic security and generational wealth — and a pathway out of poverty for millions of babies every year.

The way it works is simple: Babies are automatically enrolled at birth and receive a seed deposit that is income-dependent, meaning that lower-income families receive larger deposits, embodying a targeted, universal policy aimed at reducing wealth inequality. Federal and/or state treasuries would invest and administer the funds, which would grow over time until recipients choose to access them when they become adults. At that point, they can use these funds to pay for higher education, homeownership, or entrepreneurship — three of the most proven ways to build wealth in the U.S.

The impact of baby bonds can be transformative. Baby bonds can break the cycle of poverty and make prosperity achievable for the next generation. If administered nationally, baby bonds could shrink the racial wealth gap from 91 percent to 25 percent. By providing targeted support to lower-income communities, primarily Black and Latine, baby bonds seek to rectify some of the systemic injustices and disadvantages they disproportionately face.

Baby bonds can break the cycle of poverty and make prosperity achievable for the next generation.

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen in the U.S. — and it should be treated as a national emergency. Congress needs to strongly consider creating a national baby bonds program, such as that proposed in the American Opportunity Accounts Act (AOAA) as introduced by Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley. Under the bill, every child born in the U.S. would be provided with a government-funded savings account with seeded and annual deposits based on income. At birth, each child would receive $1,000 with an annual supplement of up to $2,000, with children from the lowest-income households receiving the maximum amount. If the AOAA had been implemented 25 years ago, Black children today would have a median account balance of $27,500, Hispanic children would have $19,800, and white children would have $7,100.

States have already stepped up to the plate. Connecticut led the way and became the first to pass legislation in 2021, providing eligible babies with $3,200 in investment accounts. Washington, D.C. initiated a similar program, with potential funds growing to $25,000 by age 18. In 2022 California followed, offering up to $8,000 to eligible children who have lost a parent to COVID-19 or are in long-term foster care.

And the momentum is growing stronger. This year, eight additional states have considered or proposed baby bond legislation, including New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Nevada, Louisiana, Maryland, and Massachusetts. While eligibility would be universal under the AOAA, only babies born under Medicaid are typically eligible under state legislation, underscoring the need for a national program.

As baby bonds catch fire across the country, it’s clear this idea is resonating with Americans of all backgrounds. A recent national YouGov poll commissioned by the ACLU revealed broad support for establishing baby bond programs. Contrary to assumptions that support might be limited to high-cost living areas, the poll results indicate that people from diverse living environments are in favor of baby bonds. Across racial lines, there is also overwhelming support. Specifically, 73 percent of Black voters, 64 percent of Latine voters, 54 percent of white voters, and 60 percent of AMEMSA and Indigenous voters expressed their endorsement of baby bonds.

This widespread support highlights the policy’s potential to bridge racial disparities and garner support from a diverse range of communities. The most notable finding is that support also spans across the political spectrum. A majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are all in favor of the baby bonds policy. This bipartisan support is particularly noteworthy, given that economic investments of this nature often face partisan opposition.

The ACLU stands firmly in support of baby bonds, recognizing their potential to reshape the landscape of racial and economic justice. It’s time to take a bold step toward a more equitable future, where every child has a chance to thrive, regardless of their family’s economic circumstances — at both the state and federal levels.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 13, 2023 at 06:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/U82En9q

ACLU: The Supreme Court Must Find South Carolina’s Voting Map Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court Must Find South Carolina’s Voting Map Unconstitutional

Racial discrimination exists in many forms. It can be as violent and overt as police brutality or as subtle as lines drawn on a voting map. In the latter case, the act may seem innocuous or technical, but the impact is significant.

Just look at what happened in January 2022. Ahead of the midterm elections, South Carolina’s majority-white and majority-Republican Legislature redrew Congressional District 1 (CD 1) to maintain political power. But it purposefully targeted Black communities to do so. Mapmakers unnecessarily moved thousands of Black voters out of the district in textbook racial sorting.

But the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race.

That’s what’s being argued in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Arnold & Porter challenged the map on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and an individual voter, Taiwan Scott.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

South Carolina intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

In January 2023, a unanimous federal three-judge court ruled that CD 1’s configuration in the 2022 map was unconstitutional because the Legislature sorted Black voters by race, and that therefore South Carolina would have to redraw it. The state appealed the ruling, however, and the Supreme Court is now set to hear oral argument on October 11.

Here’s a closer look at why this redistricting case is so important and what it could mean for Black communities in South Carolina — and across the country.

What is redistricting and why is it so important?

Redistricting is the process of redrawing the district maps on the basis of which public officials are elected. This process occurs every 10 years to account for new census data and population changes, because the Constitution requires that each district have roughly the same number of voters.

Redistricting can affect election outcomes from the federal to the local level. As a result, it can affect how communities are represented in government and how resources are distributed for health care, education, and infrastructure.

What is gerrymandering?

The redistricting process is vulnerable to abuse: it is an opportunity for legislators interested in protecting their seats to pick their preferred voters and to displace disfavored ones. A “gerrymander” refers to a district map that has been drawn to manipulate the outcome of elections. The term was coined in 1812, referring to a salamander-shaped district designed to favor Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s political party.

Today, districts are drawn using vast amounts of data, with increasingly sophisticated methods and software that heighten the ability of legislators to pick and choose between voters. This precision enhances the opportunity for gerrymandering.

South Carolina’s Legislature, for example, gerrymandered CD 1 by targeting and drawing Black communities out of the district, “exiling” them to adjacent districts — as the trial court found in the Alexander case.

Gerrymandering, by skewing the composition of a district, can prevent voters’ voices from being heard and unfairly distort election results.

How do redistricting and gerrymandering disproportionately affect Black communities?

Redistricting and gerrymandering affect all communities, but, in practice, they often have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. That’s because these practices are often employed to limit their ability to vote for representatives who can advocate for their needs and make their voices heard. When legislatures sort by race, as the court found happened in South Carolina, the legislatures also entrench the belief that representatives need only respond to members of a particular group.

How Much Do You Know about Redistricting?

How does redistricting become gerrymandering, and what does that mean for your voting rights? Test your knowledge.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

In South Carolina’s CD 1, gerrymandering prevents voters from accessing representatives who could fight for economic development, affordable housing, healthcare, resources for historically Black colleges and universities, and broadband internet, among many other issues.

Why is South Carolina’s CD 1 district map considered unconstitutional?

South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters. It acted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest such as satisfying an obligation under the Voting Rights Act. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments also forbid intentional racial discrimination.

In January 2023, a panel of three federal judges unanimously concluded that South Carolina’s congressional map is unconstitutional.

How is the ACLU working to fight discrimination in the redistricting process?

The ACLU works to ensure that redistricting takes place in a fair way that respects all voters and their communities.

In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the ACLU is advocating for the implementation of a fair and lawful CD 1 map in time for the 2024 election cycle.

What will happen when the Supreme Court hears this case?

The case is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on October 11. Because the lower court applied settled legal principles and concluded that the CD 1 map was unconstitutional based on extensive evidence, we are confident that the Supreme Court will do the same.

Black voters in CD 1 have already had to vote under an unconstitutional map once in the 2022 midterm elections. They shouldn’t have to endure that injustice in the upcoming 2024 elections, or ever again. We will fight until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 10, 2023 at 06:43PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vs3HQoT

ACLU: The Supreme Court Must Find South Carolina’s Voting Map Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court Must Find South Carolina’s Voting Map Unconstitutional

Racial discrimination exists in many forms. It can be as violent and overt as police brutality or as subtle as lines drawn on a voting map. In the latter case, the act may seem innocuous or technical, but the impact is significant.

Just look at what happened in January 2022. Ahead of the midterm elections, South Carolina’s majority-white and majority-Republican Legislature redrew Congressional District 1 (CD 1) to maintain political power. But it purposefully targeted Black communities to do so. Mapmakers unnecessarily moved thousands of Black voters out of the district in textbook racial sorting.

But the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race.

That’s what’s being argued in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Carolina, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Arnold & Porter challenged the map on behalf of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and an individual voter, Taiwan Scott.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

South Carolina intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

In January 2023, a unanimous federal three-judge court ruled that CD 1’s configuration in the 2022 map was unconstitutional because the Legislature sorted Black voters by race, and that therefore South Carolina would have to redraw it. The state appealed the ruling, however, and the Supreme Court is now set to hear oral argument on October 11.

Here’s a closer look at why this redistricting case is so important and what it could mean for Black communities in South Carolina — and across the country.

What is redistricting and why is it so important?

Redistricting is the process of redrawing the district maps on the basis of which public officials are elected. This process occurs every 10 years to account for new census data and population changes, because the Constitution requires that each district have roughly the same number of voters.

Redistricting can affect election outcomes from the federal to the local level. As a result, it can affect how communities are represented in government and how resources are distributed for health care, education, and infrastructure.

What is gerrymandering?

The redistricting process is vulnerable to abuse: it is an opportunity for legislators interested in protecting their seats to pick their preferred voters and to displace disfavored ones. A “gerrymander” refers to a district map that has been drawn to manipulate the outcome of elections. The term was coined in 1812, referring to a salamander-shaped district designed to favor Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s political party.

Today, districts are drawn using vast amounts of data, with increasingly sophisticated methods and software that heighten the ability of legislators to pick and choose between voters. This precision enhances the opportunity for gerrymandering.

South Carolina’s Legislature, for example, gerrymandered CD 1 by targeting and drawing Black communities out of the district, “exiling” them to adjacent districts — as the trial court found in the Alexander case.

Gerrymandering, by skewing the composition of a district, can prevent voters’ voices from being heard and unfairly distort election results.

How do redistricting and gerrymandering disproportionately affect Black communities?

Redistricting and gerrymandering affect all communities, but, in practice, they often have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. That’s because these practices are often employed to limit their ability to vote for representatives who can advocate for their needs and make their voices heard. When legislatures sort by race, as the court found happened in South Carolina, the legislatures also entrench the belief that representatives need only respond to members of a particular group.

How Much Do You Know about Redistricting?

How does redistricting become gerrymandering, and what does that mean for your voting rights? Test your knowledge.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

In South Carolina’s CD 1, gerrymandering prevents voters from accessing representatives who could fight for economic development, affordable housing, healthcare, resources for historically Black colleges and universities, and broadband internet, among many other issues.

Why is South Carolina’s CD 1 district map considered unconstitutional?

South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters. It acted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest such as satisfying an obligation under the Voting Rights Act. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments also forbid intentional racial discrimination.

In January 2023, a panel of three federal judges unanimously concluded that South Carolina’s congressional map is unconstitutional.

How is the ACLU working to fight discrimination in the redistricting process?

The ACLU works to ensure that redistricting takes place in a fair way that respects all voters and their communities.

In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the ACLU is advocating for the implementation of a fair and lawful CD 1 map in time for the 2024 election cycle.

What will happen when the Supreme Court hears this case?

The case is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on October 11. Because the lower court applied settled legal principles and concluded that the CD 1 map was unconstitutional based on extensive evidence, we are confident that the Supreme Court will do the same.

Black voters in CD 1 have already had to vote under an unconstitutional map once in the 2022 midterm elections. They shouldn’t have to endure that injustice in the upcoming 2024 elections, or ever again. We will fight until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published October 10, 2023 at 11:13PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/r6Zwuoy

Brunei Darussalam: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Brunei Darussalam

Brunei Darussalam: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Brunei Darussalam
Published October 06, 2023 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org