News & Commentary

Your vote matters and here’s how to cast it in Wisconsin.

The outcome of the race for the House in Arizona District 20 could determine important policies during the next legislative session.   If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion could become illegal in Arizona.   Judy Schwiebert pledged to support legislation that keeps abortion safe and legal. Shawnna Bolick and Anthony Kern pledged to vote to prohibit abortion care except in rare cases.

The outcome of the race for the House in Arizona District 23 could determine important policies during the next legislative session.   If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion could become illegal in Arizona.    Eric Kurland pledged to support legislation that keeps abortion safe and legal. John Kavanagh and Joseph Chaplick pledged to vote to prohibit abortion care except in rare cases.

Sandra Botello, an unemployed mother living in Chicago, faced a difficult financial choice — pay $400 in school fees for her son or cover the cost of renewing Chicago’s mandatory vehicle sticker. She paid the school fees, keeping her son’s education moving forward — but within weeks received five $200 tickets for not having a vehicle sticker. Late fees and collection fees caused her debt to balloon to nearly $3000. Chicago impounded Botello’s car for unpaid tickets, charged additional fees for storing her car for 33 days, and ultimately sold the car for scrap, leaving her with thousands of dollars of debt.   Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears argument in Chicago v. Fulton, a case with profound implications for Botello and millions of others across the country who are buried under mountains of debt from fines and fees they cannot afford to pay to state and local governments.  As our country grapples with an economic recession that has plunged millions of people into financial crisis — with Black and Brown communities hardest hit — the Supreme Court’s ruling on the bankruptcy question raised in Fulton is of critical importance nationwide.   Fulton concerns three bankruptcy cases resulting from Chicago’s draconian practice of addressing staggering budget gaps by squeezing people for money through hefty fines and fees, driver’s license suspension, and the seizure of their cars. Chicago seized the cars of Timothy Shannon and George Peake for unpaid tickets and the car of Robbin Fulton for driving on a license suspended for unpaid tickets. It also charged them thousands of dollars in fees to get their cars back. Unable to pay, each debtor sought a fresh start by filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.   Instead of returning the cars to Fulton, Shannon, and Peake when they each filed for bankruptcy, Chicago kept the cars, making it hard for them to go to work, earn money, and care for their families. Their cases raise the question of whether a creditor violates the automatic stay and turnover provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code when it decides, after a debtor has filed for bankruptcy, not to return estate property to the debtor. The bankruptcy courts and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals all ruled that Chicago violated the law. Chicago sought review in the Supreme Court.   Last March, the ACLU and groups across the ideological spectrum — the Cato Institute, Fines and Fees Justice Center, Institute for Justice, Rutherford Institute, and R Street Institute — submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court in Fulton. We argue that Chicago’s practice of keeping cars violates both the plain text of the Bankruptcy Code and Congress’ intent in establishing bankruptcy to give people a fresh start.   Our brief explains that the Bankruptcy Code requires creditors to return estate property to debtors immediately after the filing of a bankruptcy petition because debtors often need that property — like their cars — to earn income and make the payments required for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. Instead of playing by the rules, Chicago seeks to keep cars locked up to coerce debtors into paying Chicago first. This practice causes real harm.   For example, Fulton needed her car to get to her job, take her preschool age daughter to day care, and care for her elderly parents. Shannon, a housekeeper, needed his car to get to work. Peake needed his car for his daily 45-mile commute. None of this is surprising since 86 percent of Americans describe a car as a necessity of life and 70 percent of Chicago commuters drive alone to work.   Our brief also provides context critical to understanding the national importance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fulton. Chicago’s ticketing and impoundment practices are part of a nationwide trend in which governments turn to fines, fees, and punitive collection practices — instead of taxes — to raise public revenue. Cities and towns across the country use ticketing to raise money, leading to what some call “taxation by citation.” Nearly 600 cities raise at least 10 percent of their general fund revenue through fines and fees, and at least 284 rely on fines and fees for 20 percent or more of their general funds.   These powerful incentives for governments to impose fines and fees people cannot afford lead to crushing debts. Fines that are manageable for a person of means may be out of reach for a poor or low-income person. As of April 2020, 37 percent of American adults surveyed by the Federal Reserve reported facing difficulty covering a $400 emergency expense. Those who cannot immediately pay often face draconian collection efforts — like the

When Justice Ginsburg embarked on her legal career at the ACLU, there were hundreds of laws on the books that discriminated on the viewed reproductive freedom as a necessary component of true gender equality and dedicated her life’s work to ensuring the law was used as a tool to advance equality.   Her loss comes at a pivotal time as opponents of reproductive freedom and gender equality work strategically to roll back abortion rights. Since 2011, states have passed more than 460 abortion restrictions, eroding abortion access for far too many, including low-income people and people of color. President Trump has vowed to only appoint justices that promise to overturn Roe v. Wade. If his recent nominee is confirmed to the bench, the legal right to abortion will be in the gravest danger it has faced yet.   With federal protections for reproductive rights now precariously uncertain, it is more urgent than ever that the states safeguard access to abortion care. But in Colorado, that access is under a real, imminent threat: Proposition 115, a measure that would ban abortion later in pregnancy is on the ballot this year.   Prop. 115 would make it a crime for doctors to provide abortion care starting at 22 weeks in pregnancy, robbing pregnant people of the ability to make their own personal medical decisions without taking into consideration their personal situations. Prop. 115 is a one-size-fits-all mandate that fails to acknowledge every pregnancy is unique — and shows no compassion for what families face in unimaginably complicated circumstances. And it takes away the ability of doctors to provide the best medical care for their patients.   Prop. 115 ignores the stories of people like Christina Taylor who was 20 weeks pregnant with her third child in May 2017 when she, her husband Roy, and their two children excitedly attended a routine mid-pregnancy ultrasound. After consulting with the ultrasound tech, and additional testing, Christina’s doctor delivered heartbreaking news: their baby would not survive birth. They decided to have an abortion.    “I get a little angry at the fact that I can’t really let myself be too sad or grieve too much for the loss of my son because there’s that feeling [it is] a blessing,” Christina said. “Because we’re so privileged to have lived in Colorado where we didn’t have laws getting in the way. Our insurance covered it. I mean, just everything fell into place just perfectly to make this traumatic thing so much easier for us.”   Prop. 115 would do exactly what Christina and Roy didn’t need — get in the way of them making the best decision for their family. If it passes in November, families like the Taylors will no longer have access to compassionate abortion care in Colorado.   Let’s be clear: Abortion bans are not about health or medicine. They are about controlling our bodies and taking away our power to decide what is best for our own lives.   The proponents of this initiative have not been secretive about their agenda: They want to force every Coloradan to continue a pregnancy, with no exceptions for health or individual circumstances — even in cases of rape, risks to the pregnant person’s health, or a lethal fetal diagnosis.   Indeed, Prop. 115 is being pushed by many of the same players who have tried — and failed — to ban abortion in Colorado every year for the last decade. If Proposition 115 succeeds in Colorado this November, it will embolden its proponents to pursue bans even earlier in pregnancy with the ultimate goal of restricting all abortion access in Colorado and across the country.   In the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Frontiero v. Richardson, which challenged a law that prevented men married to women who served in the military from receiving dependent benefits, Justice Ginsburg, then a litigator for the ACLU, famously

Over the last months on our podcast, At Liberty, we’ve explored different conversations on the subject of policing: abolition, violence and accountability, protest, and activism. This week, we dug into a topic that has gained more attention in the wake of Daniel Prude’s death in March at the hands of the Rochester Police Department: the startling connection between mental health-related 911 calls and police brutality.  Studies show that nearly 50 percent of victims of police brutality are living with a disability, predominantly a mental health disability. In many ways, 911 has become the only option for people looking for mental health crisis intervention. And police often arrive at the scene armed with deadly weapons and a lack of mental health training, with devastating results.   But there is hope. There are alternatives to policing that can provide real care for people in mental health crises, if we invest in them. Joining us on this episode to break down the issue is Gregg Bloche, a professor of law at Georgetown University and a mental health care policy expert, and Ellie Virrueta, an organizer with Youth Justice Coalition. 

The election for Charleston County Sheriff on Nov. 3 can help shape the county’s policies on the role of policing in our community, immigrants’ rights, and law enforcement accountability. The Charleston County sheriff can adopt policies that will make our community safer and more just for all.

In the latest attempt to silence conversations about race and gender equity deemed “anti-American,” President Trump issued an executive order last week banning federal entities and contractors from providing employees with training on “divisive concepts” and “harmful ideologies” related to race and gender. What Trump deems “harmful ideologies” are actually concepts diversity trainings use to educate individuals on the systemic barriers and discrimination people of color and other marginalized groups still face in this country today across our institutions — from our workplaces and schools to our criminal legal system. The recent Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements have shown that people across the country fully acknowledge the realities of systemic racism and sexism are still alive and well, and the need to dismantle the systems and pursue change is more important than ever. But rather than engage with these conversations taking place across the country, the Trump administration seeks to silence individuals and impose an alternate version of American history — one that erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ individuals.   Our country needs to acknowledge its history of systemic racism and sexism and reckon with present day impacts of racial and gender discrimination. Slavery and its legacy of oppression are parts of American history that Black people are still facing today. Women, especially women of color, continue to be segregated in lower-status and lower-wage fields in the workplace, and are paid less than men across the board. Halting all diversity training could set back progress in addressing these systemic issues, among others — including in the workplace. Talking about racism and sexism is not harmful to employees. Many employers host trainings on these issues precisely because they contribute to a workplace that is more equitable and inclusive. Instead, President Trump’s authoritarian leaning executive order presents the real danger, and takes us steps backwards in achieving full equity in this country. It also violates our First Amendment right to free speech. President Trump’s executive order unconstitutionally requires every single individual or company with a federal contract to certify that they won’t provide trainings on so-called “divisive concepts,” even on the contractor’s own time and dime. In other words, the order effectively gags federal contractors from talking with their own employees about issues of the most profound national importance, such as the impact of systemic racism and sexism in our society. This is a blatant attempt to leverage the federal government’s vast financial resources to suppress speech about race and gender that the Trump administration disfavors. Trump’s executive order borrows from a long-discredited playbook. In the McCarthy era, many states passed laws requiring public employees to certify that they were not members of the Communist Party or other “treasonous,” “seditious,” or “subversive” groups. In response to numerous legal challenges, including several cases brought by the ACLU, the Supreme Court firmly established that the government cannot require people to disavow participation in constitutionally protected speech or association in order to keep their jobs. Whatever power the government may have over its employees and contractors, it does not have the power to dictate their private expression on matters of public concern, including discussions about race and gender discrimination. The Supreme Court has also rejected attempts to categorically ban or burden private expression by government employees and contractors. Such categorical bans present the gravest threat to First Amendment freedoms because they directly suppress an extraordinarily large amount of protected speech, chill even more speech before it happens, and distort discussion on matters of public concern. Of course, President Trump’s executive order is expressly designed to suppress and distort public discussion about issues that Trump considers “divisive,” such as race and gender justice. The Trump administration does not trust people to think for themselves on these issues, and so it has decided to think for them. Fortunately, the Constitution does not give President Trump that authority.

Our next Governor can determine whether doctors are punished for providing reproductive care. Some Montana legislators have attempted to threaten health care providers with criminal punishment — including prison time — for providing reproductive health care. Reproductive freedom in Montana will be in the hands of our next governor. We do not support or oppose candidates, but we urge you to cast an informed vote.