ACLU: Why Counting the Vote Can, and Should, Take Time

Why Counting the Vote Can, and Should, Take Time

Everyone remembers the four days it took to officially call the 2020 presidential race for Joe Biden. While that election seemed to take an inordinate amount of time, it’s normal for it to take several days to process all of the ballots.

Vote counting takes time, especially when the race is as close as the 2024 election appears to be. This year’s election is projected to have fewer mail-in ballots, and thus may take less time to call than the 2020 race, but each state still has its own election administration procedures on how, and when, to process ballots. These are standard processes that, yes, can cause the election results to take more time. They also are part of the system of checks and verifications that keep our elections fair and free.

In every election, teams of people from both parties work together at every step of the voting, counting, and reporting process to ensure that results are verified before they are officially certified. At the ACLU, we’ve kept close watch on this process. Below, we outline three main things that impact when the election is called.

ONE: Mail-In and Absentee Ballots

2020’s infamous four-day wait for the presidential election to be called can, at least partially, be attributed to the large numbers of people who voted by mail during the pandemic. We know that processing mail-in ballots can be time consuming. Currently, some states allow election workers to begin this lengthy process before Election Day, while others still do not. In 2020, the majority of mail-in ballots came from Democratic-leaning voters. If this election follows this pattern, there may be a late-in-the-day surge of votes in certain states.

Some states, such as Nevada and California, allow mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and arrive a specified number of days after Election Day to still be counted. This means that unofficial election results in some states may come days after Election Day.

TWO: State-Based Procedures and Processing Times

Every state has its own rules and procedures for how to count the vote.

For example, not all states offer early voting, or only offer short periods of early voting, which can possibly lead to long lines and bottlenecks on Election Day that extend the time it takes to gather all the votes. Additionally, many states, such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, do not begin processing any ballots – including mail-in or absentee ballots – until Election Day. It is therefore possible, and in some cases likely, that results won’t be projected until after Election Day. In other states, like Georgia and Michigan, pre-processing of mail-in and absentee ballots is allowed before Election Day, so projected election results in those states may come sooner, including on Election Night or the following morning.

THREE: Verifying and Counting the Vote

Canvassing is the process of counting ballots, ensuring all ballots are accounted for, and that only valid ballots are counted.

Importantly, many states also have automatic recount procedures that trigger at certain points, such as if the race is within 0.5 percent, that can also extend the canvassing process. For swing states, like Pennsylvnia, or, more recently, Nevada, the margin of victory for either candidate may be small. In these scenarios, states may recount the vote, or presidential candidates may call for a recount, which means that the states that could determine the outcome of the election may not be called until November 6th or even later.

At the ACLU, we know that these checks and verifications are standard procedure to ensure that every vote is counted. We also know that select nationwide processes can help expand access and improve the right to vote, including same-day and online voter registration across states, required early-voting access in all states for a set period, and no-excuse vote-by-mail to allow voters across the country to request and cast an absentee/mail ballot with no excuse or reason necessary.

This election, we’ll be watching the results roll in and knowing that our work doesn’t stop when the polls close. Ensuring the future of democracy requires us to safeguard our right to vote today. Join us and demand that every vote be counted and every validated result be certified to protect our freedoms.

Published November 5, 2024 at 03:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/xUcNokR

ACLU: This Election Day, States Lead the Fight for Reproductive Freedom

This Election Day, States Lead the Fight for Reproductive Freedom

Since the fall of Roe, Americans have consistently supported reproductive freedom at the polls. Knowing this, ACLU advocates across the country have worked to ensure the people have a say on reproductive freedom. On Election Day, voters will decide on ten ballot initiatives that will protect and increase abortion access at the state level.

While 13 states currently have total abortion bans in effect, Missouri was the first state to enforce its ban, taking action mere minutes after the fall of Roe. Alongside local partners, the ACLU of Missouri has spent years fighting to secure access to reproductive health care. Today, Missourians will decide on Amendment 3, which would enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in their state constitution.

In Arizona, lawmakers have likewise aggressively restricted abortion access for decades, imposing a 15-week ban on abortion after Roe was overturned and trying to reinstate an 1864 total abortion ban. The ACLU of Arizona was one of the leading organizations supporting Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which would establish a fundamental right to abortion in the state’s constitution.

Ahead of Election Day, we spoke with Tori Schafer, the director for Policy and Campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri, about what Amendment 3 means for the future of reproductive health access in her state. We also spoke to Victoria López, the director of program and strategy at the ACLU of Arizona, about the impact of Proposition 139.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

ACLU: Tell us about the history of reproductive rights in your state?

Schafer: In 2019, despite a majority of Missourians supporting reproductive rights, the state legislature passed one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Immediately, the ACLU of Missouri began organizing with partners to reject the law’s enactment [at the ballot]. The secretary of state stalled these efforts and, after lengthy litigation, we prevailed, but without enough time to collect the required signatures to initiate the referendum process. Frustrated with constantly playing defense, we began exploring the idea of bringing full constitutional protections for reproductive freedom directly to the people.

Lopez: Arizona has a long history of passing restrictive laws that prevent people from getting the abortion care they need. The ACLU of Arizona has consistently been involved in litigation and advocacy to challenge abortion restrictions, including a fetal personhood law [and] 15 and 20-week bans.

When I started at the ACLU of Arizona, one of the first cases I learned about was a challenge to a policy requiring women in jail to pay for their own transportation to medical appointments for abortion care. That case was my first on-the-ground experience fighting to ensure abortion access for all people in our state.

ACLU: How would the ballot measures in your state help residents?

Schafer: This ballot measure, “The Right to Reproductive Freedom,” is a constitutional amendment that would end the state’s abortion ban and give Missourians the right to make their own health care decisions — free from political interference. It also protects other forms of reproductive healthcare, including prenatal care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.

Lopez: Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, is a people-powered initiative that establishes a fundamental right to abortion in our state’s constitution.

Prop 139 is based on that very-Arizona idea that politicians should not interfere in private medical decisions. As a “battleground” state with an abortion initiative on our ballot, we also see the direct connection between defending democracy against extremist threats so our communities can achieve the rights and dignity they deserve, including abortion access.

ACLU: Getting measures on the ballot is often challenging. What has the fight for this ballot measure been like?

Schafer: After many conversations with reproductive health care experts, community leaders, and lawyers, the committee filed the ballot measure in March 2023. However, the secretary of state refused to certify the measure. It was the first time a secretary tried to undermine the process in this way. That’s when we went to the Missouri Supreme Court for the first time – and won. After two more lawsuits to block misleading ballot summary questions and exaggerated claims about the measure's fiscal impact, the committee began collecting signatures in January 2024 and gathered more than double the required amount.

An incredible amount of work from volunteers and organizers across the state, a total of five legal challenges, and boundless hope have led to voters having Amendment 3 on their ballot.

Lopez: Following the Dobbs decision, Arizonans faced a complicated and shifting landscape around their right to abortion. We quickly saw efforts to reinstate a Civil War-era abortion ban from a time before Arizona was even a state that would have banned abortion in almost every case.

We worked with partners to successfully advocate at the legislature and through litigation to ensure this ban would never take effect. While the Arizona Supreme Court ultimately decided to reinstate the 1864 ban on abortion, subsequent legislative advocacy resulted in the repeal of that law. Fortunately, we never saw that antiquated law go into effect. However, the legislature left a 15-week ban in effect that has denied countless Arizonans access to needed care. In response to these attacks on their rights, communities across the state took action, collecting over 820,000 signatures, more than any ballot measure in the state's history, to qualify for the ballot.

ACLU: How does your state fit into the nationwide fight for our rights?

Schafer: Missouri was the first state to enforce a total abortion ban after Dobbs. When we pass Amendment 3, we’ll be the first state to end a total abortion ban [in effect]. I hope people see victories in states like mine and think, “If you can win in Missouri, we can win everywhere!” In the end, this vote isn’t about pushing one’s beliefs on others. It’s about respecting the personal freedoms we deeply value here in Missouri — the freedom to make decisions for ourselves, our families, and our future. We know the vast majority of Americans agree with this principle.

Lopez: In this historic election, where Arizona is a deciding factor, my daughter is voting for the first time. I am so proud to have been a part of this campaign and that she has been able to witness the nationwide support for, and success of, this campaign since the very beginning. We know this fight in Arizona is only part of a nationwide movement to ensure every person, in every state, can access the care they need and deserve.

Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. Anthony Romero, Executive Director, 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004, and authorized by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom and in coordination with Arizona for Abortion Access.

Published November 5, 2024 at 02:28AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/x7Fkqd3

ACLU: This Election Day, States Lead the Fight for Reproductive Freedom

This Election Day, States Lead the Fight for Reproductive Freedom

Since the fall of Roe, Americans have consistently supported reproductive freedom at the polls. Knowing this, ACLU advocates across the country have worked to ensure the people have a say on reproductive freedom. On Election Day, voters will decide on ten ballot initiatives that will protect and increase abortion access at the state level.

While 13 states currently have total abortion bans in effect, Missouri was the first state to enforce its ban, taking action mere minutes after the fall of Roe. Alongside local partners, the ACLU of Missouri has spent years fighting to secure access to reproductive health care. Today, Missourians will decide on Amendment 3, which would enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in their state constitution.

In Arizona, lawmakers have likewise aggressively restricted abortion access for decades, imposing a 15-week ban on abortion after Roe was overturned and trying to reinstate an 1864 total abortion ban. The ACLU of Arizona was one of the leading organizations supporting Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which would establish a fundamental right to abortion in the state’s constitution.

Ahead of Election Day, we spoke with Tori Schafer, the director for Policy and Campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri, about what Amendment 3 means for the future of reproductive health access in her state. We also spoke to Victoria López, the director of program and strategy at the ACLU of Arizona, about the impact of Proposition 139.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

ACLU: Tell us about the history of reproductive rights in your state?

Schafer: In 2019, despite a majority of Missourians supporting reproductive rights, the state legislature passed one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Immediately, the ACLU of Missouri began organizing with partners to reject the law’s enactment [at the ballot]. The secretary of state stalled these efforts and, after lengthy litigation, we prevailed, but without enough time to collect the required signatures to initiate the referendum process. Frustrated with constantly playing defense, we began exploring the idea of bringing full constitutional protections for reproductive freedom directly to the people.

Lopez: Arizona has a long history of passing restrictive laws that prevent people from getting the abortion care they need. The ACLU of Arizona has consistently been involved in litigation and advocacy to challenge abortion restrictions, including a fetal personhood law [and] 15 and 20-week bans.

When I started at the ACLU of Arizona, one of the first cases I learned about was a challenge to a policy requiring women in jail to pay for their own transportation to medical appointments for abortion care. That case was my first on-the-ground experience fighting to ensure abortion access for all people in our state.

ACLU: How would the ballot measures in your state help residents?

Schafer: This ballot measure, “The Right to Reproductive Freedom,” is a constitutional amendment that would end the state’s abortion ban and give Missourians the right to make their own health care decisions — free from political interference. It also protects other forms of reproductive healthcare, including prenatal care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.

Lopez: Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, is a people-powered initiative that establishes a fundamental right to abortion in our state’s constitution.

Prop 139 is based on that very-Arizona idea that politicians should not interfere in private medical decisions. As a “battleground” state with an abortion initiative on our ballot, we also see the direct connection between defending democracy against extremist threats so our communities can achieve the rights and dignity they deserve, including abortion access.

ACLU: Getting measures on the ballot is often challenging. What has the fight for this ballot measure been like?

Schafer: After many conversations with reproductive health care experts, community leaders, and lawyers, the committee filed the ballot measure in March 2023. However, the secretary of state refused to certify the measure. It was the first time a secretary tried to undermine the process in this way. That’s when we went to the Missouri Supreme Court for the first time – and won. After two more lawsuits to block misleading ballot summary questions and exaggerated claims about the measure's fiscal impact, the committee began collecting signatures in January 2024 and gathered more than double the required amount.

An incredible amount of work from volunteers and organizers across the state, a total of five legal challenges, and boundless hope have led to voters having Amendment 3 on their ballot.

Lopez: Following the Dobbs decision, Arizonans faced a complicated and shifting landscape around their right to abortion. We quickly saw efforts to reinstate a Civil War-era abortion ban from a time before Arizona was even a state that would have banned abortion in almost every case.

We worked with partners to successfully advocate at the legislature and through litigation to ensure this ban would never take effect. While the Arizona Supreme Court ultimately decided to reinstate the 1864 ban on abortion, subsequent legislative advocacy resulted in the repeal of that law. Fortunately, we never saw that antiquated law go into effect. However, the legislature left a 15-week ban in effect that has denied countless Arizonans access to needed care. In response to these attacks on their rights, communities across the state took action, collecting over 820,000 signatures, more than any ballot measure in the state's history, to qualify for the ballot.

ACLU: How does your state fit into the nationwide fight for our rights?

Schafer: Missouri was the first state to enforce a total abortion ban after Dobbs. When we pass Amendment 3, we’ll be the first state to end a total abortion ban [in effect]. I hope people see victories in states like mine and think, “If you can win in Missouri, we can win everywhere!” In the end, this vote isn’t about pushing one’s beliefs on others. It’s about respecting the personal freedoms we deeply value here in Missouri — the freedom to make decisions for ourselves, our families, and our future. We know the vast majority of Americans agree with this principle.

Lopez: In this historic election, where Arizona is a deciding factor, my daughter is voting for the first time. I am so proud to have been a part of this campaign and that she has been able to witness the nationwide support for, and success of, this campaign since the very beginning. We know this fight in Arizona is only part of a nationwide movement to ensure every person, in every state, can access the care they need and deserve.

Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. Anthony Romero, Executive Director, 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004, and authorized by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom and in coordination with Arizona for Abortion Access.

Published November 4, 2024 at 08:58PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/jVL82Cv

ACLU: We're Fighting for our Freedoms -- No Matter Who is President

We're Fighting for our Freedoms -- No Matter Who is President

As we near Election Day, the ACLU is in conversation with state and local activists about how to prepare for, and respond to, the election outcome. Many people we spoke with are grappling with how they can best protect their communities and fight back against unprecedented attempts to restrict our rights. Right now, there’s real concern about how to combat the dystopian, authoritarian vision for America that Project 2025 and other extremist figures have promised.

Many ACLU supporters also tell us that it already feels like Project 2025 is in operation in their community. They are living with state-level bans on abortion, ideological purges in their schools, and intimidation and harassment from anti-civil rights law enforcement officials and threats by vigilante groups. No matter who wins the White House, they will continue to live with attempts to impose an extreme, anti-civil liberties agenda on their communities.

The gravity of this moment is clear to all of us. We need to come together now to prepare a sustained and coordinated advocacy campaign for civil liberties and civil rights protections where we live. We need a firewall for freedom: a barrier that stops the fiery spread of constant attacks on our civil liberties and civil rights.

How to Build a Firewall for Freedom

Without the assistance of state and local government agencies, a presidential administration will find it much harder to act on its worst threats, such as mass deportations. That is why we are calling on state governments to ensure a firewall between state and local personnel, resources or data and federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies that attempt to violate our constitutional freedoms. When federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies request information or assistance they could use to undermine the civil rights of residents, state agencies can and should decline to provide it. We urge state legislatures to pass measures that affirm and enforce this firewall for freedom.

We also urge state and local leaders to pass laws, issue directives and reaffirm state constitutional protections for the right to protest, data privacy, and student non-discrimination. This support is vital to educators, health care providers and families who may face attacks or harassment from either a turbocharged federal law enforcement or another state’s prosecutors.

At the local level, we urge mayors and city councils to come together to protect and support families who could be targeted by mass deportation efforts, attempts to criminalize gender non-conformity and other anti-trans discrimination, and other attacks. We will also urge state and local leaders to move forward on racial and criminal justice in a climate that will remain challenging no matter who wins the presidency.

How We Speak Out for Our Freedoms

Even in legislatures and city councils where they are in the minority, individual elected leaders have powerful voices. We urge them to stand alongside impacted community members, bear witness to abuses, and speak out. This will be vital to pushing back on the xenophobia, racism, and bigotry that we have unfortunately seen in far too many of our communities.

Trump has threatened to use the military and federal law enforcement agencies to go after his political opponents. Sadly, we have already seen similar action from state and local law enforcement. For example, state police in Florida accosted voters and the Texas attorney general attacked faith-based communities, voting rights protections organizations, immigrant communities, and reproductive health nonprofits. It is vital for state and local elected leaders to present a counternarrative to such attacks, and an alternative vision of governance built on freedom and rights.

How We’re Fighting Back

The ACLU has challenged unlawful attacks on our rights and freedoms for more than 100 years. We know that states are the frontlines in this fight for justice. They have the power to build the firewall we described that will protect our communities. We are prepared to use every tool at our disposal to continue this fight — no matter who wins the presidential election — and we have a plan.

For months, the ACLU’s legal and advocacy experts have been developing a roadmap to work with Congress and in statehouses to protect and expand abortion access, pass nondiscrimination laws, and more in the event of Kamala Harris or Donald Trump presidency. This plan is outlined in 13 memos addressing the key policy concerns of either candidate. In the coming months, our affiliates throughout the country will lead the charge to enact state firewalls to protect residents and push back on any unconstitutional tactics, whether pursued by a president or other states.

This important work starts now, and it starts with you. Join us in the fight for our freedoms. Let’s get to work.

Published November 1, 2024 at 02:55PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/VHMrL5Z

ACLU: We're Fighting for our Freedoms -- No Matter Who is President

We're Fighting for our Freedoms -- No Matter Who is President

As we near Election Day, the ACLU is in conversation with state and local activists about how to prepare for, and respond to, the election outcome. Many people we spoke with are grappling with how they can best protect their communities and fight back against unprecedented attempts to restrict our rights. Right now, there’s real concern about how to combat the dystopian, authoritarian vision for America that Project 2025 and other extremist figures have promised.

Many ACLU supporters also tell us that it already feels like Project 2025 is in operation in their community. They are living with state-level bans on abortion, ideological purges in their schools, and intimidation and harassment from anti-civil rights law enforcement officials and threats by vigilante groups. No matter who wins the White House, they will continue to live with attempts to impose an extreme, anti-civil liberties agenda on their communities.

The gravity of this moment is clear to all of us. We need to come together now to prepare a sustained and coordinated advocacy campaign for civil liberties and civil rights protections where we live. We need a firewall for freedom: a barrier that stops the fiery spread of constant attacks on our civil liberties and civil rights.

How to Build a Firewall for Freedom

Without the assistance of state and local government agencies, a presidential administration will find it much harder to act on its worst threats, such as mass deportations. That is why we are calling on state governments to ensure a firewall between state and local personnel, resources or data and federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies that attempt to violate our constitutional freedoms. When federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies request information or assistance they could use to undermine the civil rights of residents, state agencies can and should decline to provide it. We urge state legislatures to pass measures that affirm and enforce this firewall for freedom.

We also urge state and local leaders to pass laws, issue directives and reaffirm state constitutional protections for the right to protest, data privacy, and student non-discrimination. This support is vital to educators, health care providers and families who may face attacks or harassment from either a turbocharged federal law enforcement or another state’s prosecutors.

At the local level, we urge mayors and city councils to come together to protect and support families who could be targeted by mass deportation efforts, attempts to criminalize gender non-conformity and other anti-trans discrimination, and other attacks. We will also urge state and local leaders to move forward on racial and criminal justice in a climate that will remain challenging no matter who wins the presidency.

How We Speak Out for Our Freedoms

Even in legislatures and city councils where they are in the minority, individual elected leaders have powerful voices. We urge them to stand alongside impacted community members, bear witness to abuses, and speak out. This will be vital to pushing back on the xenophobia, racism, and bigotry that we have unfortunately seen in far too many of our communities.

Trump has threatened to use the military and federal law enforcement agencies to go after his political opponents. Sadly, we have already seen similar action from state and local law enforcement. For example, state police in Florida accosted voters and the Texas attorney general attacked faith-based communities, voting rights protections organizations, immigrant communities, and reproductive health nonprofits. It is vital for state and local elected leaders to present a counternarrative to such attacks, and an alternative vision of governance built on freedom and rights.

How We’re Fighting Back

The ACLU has challenged unlawful attacks on our rights and freedoms for more than 100 years. We know that states are the frontlines in this fight for justice. They have the power to build the firewall we described that will protect our communities. We are prepared to use every tool at our disposal to continue this fight — no matter who wins the presidential election — and we have a plan.

For months, the ACLU’s legal and advocacy experts have been developing a roadmap to work with Congress and in statehouses to protect and expand abortion access, pass nondiscrimination laws, and more in the event of Kamala Harris or Donald Trump presidency. This plan is outlined in 13 memos addressing the key policy concerns of either candidate. In the coming months, our affiliates throughout the country will lead the charge to enact state firewalls to protect residents and push back on any unconstitutional tactics, whether pursued by a president or other states.

This important work starts now, and it starts with you. Join us in the fight for our freedoms. Let’s get to work.

Published November 1, 2024 at 08:25PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/xfMQOGH

ACLU: Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-immigrant extremists have repeatedly used “invasion” rhetoric to divide our communities and advance their anti-immigrant agenda. Donald Trump has promised to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and, at recent campaign rallies, gone so far as to pledge that, if re-elected, he will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to facilitate a draconian mass deportation program. Though Trump made similar promises when in office, we know that his administration would be far more aggressive in its efforts to use this colonial-era law to deport millions. Below, we breakdown what this means for our communities.

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was passed as part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were a series of laws passed by a Federalist-led Congress to address fears about an impending war with France. While the other three laws have since expired or been repealed, the Alien Enemies Act remains active.

The law has not changed much since it was passed in 1798. Right now, it permits the president to apprehend, restrain, and remove noncitizens during a “declared war” or if the U.S. faces an “invasion or predatory incursion” by another country or foreign government. The law applies to “natives” of another country, which potentially includes people who were born abroad, but who are long-term residents of the U.S. Past presidents have detained or deported noncitizens with legal status and noncitizens raised in the United States. While the government has never sought to use the Act to detain citizens, we have ample reason to fear that Trump would seek to break that norm.

Many fear that a second Trump administration would seek to use this law to justify indefinite detention and remove people from the country swiftly and without judicial review. Historically, people have been subject to removal under the Act without any fundamental due process safeguards, which makes it ripe for civil liberties abuses. For example, the Act’s text does not require that noncitizens receive a hearing prior to detention or removal, and the government has read it to provide limited opportunities for administrative or judicial review.

There is also a real risk that the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its mass deportation agenda will lead to racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement. The rhetoric surrounding the Alien Enemies Act could embolden law enforcement agents to act on their perceptions of a person’s ancestry or nationality, leading to wrongful arrest, detention, and deportation, including of U.S. citizens.

The Alien Enemies Act Has a Sordid Past

Throughout this country’s history, the Act has been used to target people merely on the basis of their ancestry or nationality. The act was first used during the War of 1812 against British nationals, and later used by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I against nationals of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and other foreign nations. The last time this wartime authority was invoked, during World War II, lead to the incarceration of noncitizens of primarily Japanese descent – the precursor to the internment program targeting Japanese Americans – that marked one of the most shameful moments in American history. In 1988, when Congress apologized and provided reparations for Japanese internment, it acknowledged the application of the law lead to fundamental violations of the civil liberties and constitutional rights of individuals of Japanese ancestry, and that the government’s actions were motivated largely by “racial prejudice” and “a failure of political leadership.”

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.

The consequences of allowing this kind of fearmongering to trigger the Act would be staggering. Take, for example, Trump’s claim of an “invasion” of immigrants from Mexico. If courts were to accept that baseless claim, the result could be presidential authority to deport all Mexican nationals — even lawful permanent residents who have lived in this country for decades, raising families that include U.S. citizen children and building their lives in our communities.

The Time for States to Act is Now

The Alien Enemies Act’s history reminds us that presidents can invoke vague and overbroad emergency powers to unfairly and wrongly target people based on political ideology, ancestry, or nationality. Trump’s pledge to invoke this outdated law is a harrowing call to action to ensure our government does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Elected leaders need to be vigilant and speak out now against mass deportations, including the potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. While Trump and his surrogates are couching their claims in terms of crime, drugs, and cartels, it is all too clear that their mass deportation agenda extends to millions of our loved ones, neighbors, and co-workers.

That’s why the ACLU is calling on state and local government leaders to create a firewall to ensure that no state and local personnel or resources are tapped by the federal government to enact mass deportations and any other civil liberties violations. At the local level, we will urge mayors and city councils to come together to protect and support families targeted by Trump’s mass deportation drive and other attacks.

The bottom line is that a president cannot unilaterally make good on threats to conduct the largest deportation drive in our nation’s history, or to do so using the Alien Enemies Act and other legal authorities. Without the assistance of state and local government agencies, a second Trump administration will find it much harder to identify, arrest, and detain our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. The ACLU – and our more than 4 million members – are prepared to fight alongside states to combat any attacks on people who are immigrants and ensure that mass deportations never take root in our communities.

Published November 1, 2024 at 02:27AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1AQrMz2

ACLU: Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-Immigrant Extremists Want to Use this 226-Year-Old Law to Implement a Mass Deportation Program

Anti-immigrant extremists have repeatedly used “invasion” rhetoric to divide our communities and advance their anti-immigrant agenda. Donald Trump has promised to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and, at recent campaign rallies, gone so far as to pledge that, if re-elected, he will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to facilitate a draconian mass deportation program. Though Trump made similar promises when in office, we know that his administration would be far more aggressive in its efforts to use this colonial-era law to deport millions. Below, we breakdown what this means for our communities.

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was passed as part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were a series of laws passed by a Federalist-led Congress to address fears about an impending war with France. While the other three laws have since expired or been repealed, the Alien Enemies Act remains active.

The law has not changed much since it was passed in 1798. Right now, it permits the president to apprehend, restrain, and remove noncitizens during a “declared war” or if the U.S. faces an “invasion or predatory incursion” by another country or foreign government. The law applies to “natives” of another country, which potentially includes people who were born abroad, but who are long-term residents of the U.S. Past presidents have detained or deported noncitizens with legal status and noncitizens raised in the United States. While the government has never sought to use the Act to detain citizens, we have ample reason to fear that Trump would seek to break that norm.

Many fear that a second Trump administration would seek to use this law to justify indefinite detention and remove people from the country swiftly and without judicial review. Historically, people have been subject to removal under the Act without any fundamental due process safeguards, which makes it ripe for civil liberties abuses. For example, the Act’s text does not require that noncitizens receive a hearing prior to detention or removal, and the government has read it to provide limited opportunities for administrative or judicial review.

There is also a real risk that the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its mass deportation agenda will lead to racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement. The rhetoric surrounding the Alien Enemies Act could embolden law enforcement agents to act on their perceptions of a person’s ancestry or nationality, leading to wrongful arrest, detention, and deportation, including of U.S. citizens.

The Alien Enemies Act Has a Sordid Past

Throughout this country’s history, the Act has been used to target people merely on the basis of their ancestry or nationality. The act was first used during the War of 1812 against British nationals, and later used by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I against nationals of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and other foreign nations. The last time this wartime authority was invoked, during World War II, lead to the incarceration of noncitizens of primarily Japanese descent – the precursor to the internment program targeting Japanese Americans – that marked one of the most shameful moments in American history. In 1988, when Congress apologized and provided reparations for Japanese internment, it acknowledged the application of the law lead to fundamental violations of the civil liberties and constitutional rights of individuals of Japanese ancestry, and that the government’s actions were motivated largely by “racial prejudice” and “a failure of political leadership.”

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.

The consequences of allowing this kind of fearmongering to trigger the Act would be staggering. Take, for example, Trump’s claim of an “invasion” of immigrants from Mexico. If courts were to accept that baseless claim, the result could be presidential authority to deport all Mexican nationals — even lawful permanent residents who have lived in this country for decades, raising families that include U.S. citizen children and building their lives in our communities.

The Time for States to Act is Now

The Alien Enemies Act’s history reminds us that presidents can invoke vague and overbroad emergency powers to unfairly and wrongly target people based on political ideology, ancestry, or nationality. Trump’s pledge to invoke this outdated law is a harrowing call to action to ensure our government does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Elected leaders need to be vigilant and speak out now against mass deportations, including the potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. While Trump and his surrogates are couching their claims in terms of crime, drugs, and cartels, it is all too clear that their mass deportation agenda extends to millions of our loved ones, neighbors, and co-workers.

That’s why the ACLU is calling on state and local government leaders to create a firewall to ensure that no state and local personnel or resources are tapped by the federal government to enact mass deportations and any other civil liberties violations. At the local level, we will urge mayors and city councils to come together to protect and support families targeted by Trump’s mass deportation drive and other attacks.

The bottom line is that a president cannot unilaterally make good on threats to conduct the largest deportation drive in our nation’s history, or to do so using the Alien Enemies Act and other legal authorities. Without the assistance of state and local government agencies, a second Trump administration will find it much harder to identify, arrest, and detain our immigrant neighbors and loved ones. The ACLU – and our more than 4 million members – are prepared to fight alongside states to combat any attacks on people who are immigrants and ensure that mass deportations never take root in our communities.

Published October 31, 2024 at 08:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dws2qQk