ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union of Washington - All Feeds

ACLU Joins Legal Team Challenging Sound Transit’s Refusal to Run Ad for “Good Jobs”

srobinson — Fri, 04 May 2012 19:33:50 +0000

The ACLU of Washington today joined the legal team representing Working Washington in its lawsuit challenging Sound Transit’s refusal to run an ad it submitted in March. The nonprofit group is seeking to run advertising on light rail promoting good jobs for low-income workers at Sea-Tac Airport. Filed on April 5 in U.S. District Court, the lawsuit (Working Washington v. Sound Transit) says that Sound Transit’s rejection of the ad violates the agency’s policies and the First Amendment.

“A government agency that operates an advertising program open to a wide variety of messages cannot just leave it to the discretion of individual government officials to decide subjectively what is ‘controversial.’ What Sound Transit has done in rejecting the ‘Good Jobs’ ad is to censor a message without a reasonable basis,” said ACLU of Washington legal director Sarah Dunne.

The ad in question was submitted by Working Washington to call attention to the issue of low-wage jobs at Sea-Tac. The ad features three images: first class (with a picture of a wine glass on a plane), coach class (with a picture of the inside of a plane), and “poverty class” (with a photo of a man who still makes minimum wage after working more than 30 years at Sea-Tac. The ad’s tagline simply states, “Let’s make all airport jobs good jobs.”

Working Washington submitted the ad to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (commonly known as Sound Transit), which operates an advertising program on its buses and trains. On March 6, Working Washington signed a contract to run the ad with Clear Channel, which manages Sound Transit’s ad program, and paid for the ad. But on March 20th, Sound Transit said it would not allow the ad to run and refunded the money, saying (through Clear Channel) that, “Sound Transit is not allowing political type ads on their buses or trains.”

Sound Transit’s Advertising Policy states that the agency controls ads displayed at or on its facilities, including “maintaining a position of neutrality on political, religious, and controversial matters.” Its Advertising Standards lists “political” material among 18 categories of restricted materials, and defines political ads and material as that which “promotes or appears to promote any candidate for office, any political party or promotes or implies position on any proposition, referendum, proposed or existing laws, or other ballot measures.”

“The Working Washington ad does not fit any of the grounds Sound Transit gives for prohibiting political ads. In rejecting it, the agency is misapplying its own policy,” said the ACLU-WA’s Sarah Dunne.

The suit contends that in operating its advertising program Sound Transit established a designated public forum for speech and cannot arbitrarily exclude speech based on its message. Sound Transit’s policy states it wants to remain neutral on controversial issues, but its policy does not define what “controversial speech” is.

In practice, Sound Transit has run a wide variety of ads on issues of public interest, including ones by Working Washington in 2011 with taglines “Our Bridges Need Work. So Do We” and “Stand Up for Good Jobs.” Sound Transit also has approved an ad by Planned Parenthood promoting condoms that said, “Where Did You Wear It? … Be Proud to Wear Protection.”

In refusing to run Working Washington’s “Good Jobs” ad, the agency is impermissibly rejecting speech based on its viewpoint and serving as an arbiter of what is controversial. The suit seeks to have the court issue an injunction to have Sound Transit run the ad.

Ironically, the ad “Let’s Make All Airport Jobs Good Jobs” has been approved for display inside the baggage claim area of Sea-Tac airport.

Working Washington is a non-profit coalition of individuals, neighborhood associations, immigrant groups, civil rights organizations, people of faith, and labor groups united for good jobs and a fair economy.

Representing Working Washington are ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys Mike Kipling and Marjorie Walter of the Kipling Law Group, ACLU-WA legal director Sarah Dunne and staff attorney La Rond Baker, and Dmitiri Iglitzin of Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP.

ACLU Publishes First-Ever Guide to Rights in the Digital Age for Students in Washington

srobinson — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:47:16 +0000

Can a public school limit what students do online? Must students give administrators access to their private text messages, photos, e-mails, and contacts on their cell phones? Do students need permission to videotape other students or teachers at school?

Answering these and many other questions, the ACLU of Washington has published the first-ever guidebook laying out the legal rights of public school students in using electronic communications devices. Student Rights and Responsibilities in the Digital Age responds to a wide spectrum of issues that are arising as students express themselves via cell phone calls, text messages, blogs, chat rooms, Facebook, Twitter, and a host of other new avenues.

The guidebook provides information about legal rights online, as well as the limits to those rights. “Students have free speech and privacy rights that our schools must recognize and respect. At the same time, students have to follow reasonable rules so that school is a safe, welcoming place where all students can learn,” said Brian Alseth, ACLU-WA Technology and Liberty Program Director.

Major sections of the booklet address Technology and Free Speech, Recording People at School, Searches at School, and – of course – What To Do If You Think Your School Has Violated Your Rights. Some of the cutting-edge legal issues it examines include use of social networks, location tracking devices, sexting, and cyberbullying.

The ACLU-WA has long been a leader in ensuring that traditional protections for student free speech are extended into cyberspace. A decade ago we won landmark rulings in both federal and state court on behalf of students whom administrators wrongfully tried to discipline for satirical postings on websites which the students created on their own time, on their computers at home.

The publication is available online in the Resources section of our website at aclu-wa.org. There you can also find our other publications on rights at school, notably Know Your Rights: A Guide for Public School Students in Washington.

Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Stops and Interrogations by Border Patrol Agents on Olympic Peninsula

srobinson — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:58:20 +0000

Three residents of the Olympic Peninsula today filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the U.S. Border Patrol’s practice of stopping vehicles and interrogating occupants without legal justification. Filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, the lawsuit says that the Border Patrol’s suspicionless stops on the Peninsula violate constitutional rights, and it seeks a court injunction barring such unlawful stops in the future. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) and the ACLU of Washington are representing the residents and will seek class-action status for the suit.

“The Border Patrol’s actions have created a climate of fear and anxiety for many people living on the Olympic Peninsula. The residents in this suit all are U.S. citizens who worry that they could be stopped and questioned without reason any time they drive or are passengers in cars. We’re asking the court to put in place safeguards to stop the Border Patrol’s unlawful and unfair practices,” said Sarah Dunne, legal director of ACLU.

“People are being stopped based solely on their appearance and ethnicity. This is unlawful and contrary to American values. No one in a car should be stopped and interrogated by government agents unless the law enforcement officer has a legal basis to do so,” said Matt Adams, legal director of NWIRP.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Border Patrol’s suspicionless stops violate the Fourth Amendment and exceed the agency’s legal powers. The suit seeks to prohibit Border Patrol agents from stopping vehicles without reasonable suspicion that an occupant has entered the U.S. without approval. It also seeks to prohibit stops altogether until each agent on the Olympic Peninsula has received training regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion for a stop. The suit would have the court require that Border Patrol agents prepare documentation recording the basis of their suspicion that justifies each stop. Furthermore, the documentation should be easily accessible to a court-appointed special master to monitor compliance.

The plaintiffs have experienced unwarranted stops and interrogations in a variety of settings, all while going about their daily lives. Agents provided flimsy pretexts or no reason at all for the stops. Some stops appear to be based on nothing but the Border Patrol agents’ perception of the plaintiffs’ ethnicity or the color of their skin. The incidents are typical of troubling encounters which many residents of the Peninsula have had with Border Patrol agents.

Jose Sanchez is a resident of Forks and correctional officer for the Olympic Corrections Center. In 2011 in Forks, Border Patrol agents stopped the vehicle he was in, saying its windows were too dark – even though the driver’s side window was not tinted. The agents questioned Sanchez – a U.S. citizen – about where he was from.

In an earlier incident, Sanchez and a family member were traveling in a vehicle near Forks, when Border Patrol agents stopped the car and interrogated him about his immigration status. Though agents told him that his vehicle was stopped because its windows were too dark, the agents did not ask for his insurance or registration. When he provided those documents, the agents refused to inspect them.

In yet another incident at Forks, Sanchez was traveling home in a vehicle which was followed by Border Patrol agents. When he arrived at his house, the agents approached him. But when Sanchez began to record the encounter with his cell phone, the agents backed away.

When Sanchez called the Border Patrol office to complain about being repeatedly stopped and interrogated, the office supervisor told him simply, “We have certain cars that we need to pull over.”
Ismael Ramos Contreras is a resident of Forks and a senior and student government body president at Forks High School. In 2011 at Port Angeles, he was traveling in a vehicle with several teenage friends to pick up tuxedos for a Quinceañera (15^th birthday) celebration when the vehicle was stopped by four Border Patrol agents. One agent tried to take the key out of the ignition, so the driver handed him the key. Agents interrogated the boys about their immigration status, but never provided a reason for the stop.

In an earlier incident in 2010, while walking out of the Clallam County Courthouse in Forks with his mother, Ramos Contreras was approached by a person who addressed him by name and began questioning him about where he lived and came from. Based on the questions, his mother identified the person as a Border Patrol agent; the person indeed turned out to be an agent who was in plain clothes and wearing their badge backwards.
Ernest Grimes is a resident of Neah Bay, a correctional officer at Clallam Bay Corrections Center, and a part-time police officer. In 2011 near Clallam Bay, a Border Patrol agent stopped the vehicle in which Grimes was traveling, approached with his hand on his weapon, and yelled at Grimes to roll down his window. Without offering a reason for the stop, the agent interrogated Grimes about his immigration status. Grimes, who is African American, was wearing his correctional officer uniform at the time.

Representing the plaintiffs are NWIRP legal director Matt Adams, ACLU-WA legal director Sarah Dunne and staff attorney La Rond Baker, and cooperating attorneys Nicholas Gellert, Brendan Peters, Javier Garcia, and Steve Merriman of the firm Perkins Coie LLP.

ACLU Urges City’s Leaders to Agree to Consent Decree with Department of Justice

srobinson — Fri, 11 May 2012 00:14:12 +0000

The ACLU of Washington issued this statement today by Executive Director Kathleen Taylor:

“To ensure that reforms to the Seattle Police Department are fully implemented and long-lasting, the City needs speedily to agree to a consent decree with the Department of Justice that includes a monitor and court oversight. The DOJ investigation and recommendations resulted from the SPD’s inability to curtail excessive and unconstitutional use of force by some of its officers. It's clear that the problems within the police department have been so ingrained that our city can't fix them without outside help.

“The Mayor’s “20/20” plan includes some good ideas for improving policing in Seattle. But it is too vague to serve as the roadmap for reforming our police department’s practices, and it lacks teeth to ensure implementation and enforcement.

“The city’s leaders should not resist negotiating a consent decree. The expense of defending against a DOJ lawsuit will be far greater if settlement discussions fail. The city will incur attorneys’ fees, costs of experts, and other expenses in a drawn-out court battle, one which would likely result in similar court-ordered conditions to those now offered by the DOJ. Seattle has waited long enough for improvements in its police department. We need a consent decree now.”

Internet Operations Manager (Full-time)

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:36:18 +0000

The ACLU of Washington is a non-profit public interest organization devoted to protecting civil rights and civil liberties. Its staff of thirty employees and numerous volunteers work in a fast-paced, friendly and professional office. We are seeking an Internet Operations Manager for our three-person Information Technology team. Reporting to the Information Technology Director, the Internet Operations Manager will be responsible for web development, site configuration, content administration, and internet user support in a mixed CMS environment.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Maintain our online infrastructure, create content and applications according to specifications, and design and code features for our website.
Customize and occasionally develop Drupal themes.
Develop apps for social media and the mobile web.
Develop, configure, and troubleshoot back-end connections between websites and databases.
Produce and administer e-mail messages and tools for online advocacy.
Administer and support our intranet and internal web tools.
Advise internal departments and campaigns on and support their use of web technologies.
Train and support staff in the use of web-based systems. Author instructional materials.
Serve as a liaison with external contractors. Research and recommend vendors and platforms as needed.
Collect and report web and social media analytics.
Coordinate and train volunteers to assist in online advocacy and communications efforts.
Help maintain a positive, respectful, welcoming, and professional work environment for employees and volunteers. Assist in other activities as assigned.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Three or more years of work experience in web development and administration.
Experience with Drupal theming and configuration.
Knowledge of HTML5, CSS, PHP, Perl, Javascript, SQL, and related technologies.
Experience with Adobe Creative Suite applications.
A degree in Information Technology, Communications, Design or a related field is a plus.
Successful experience in juggling multiple priorities and many-faceted projects in a fast-paced environment with frequent and concurrent deadlines.
Good problem solving and communication skills.
Proven ability to handle projects, manage details, collaborate on teams, and follow-through on assigned tasks independently.
A confident and professional presentation. A history of reliability, conscientiousness, and timeliness.
A commitment to diversity; a personal approach that values the individual and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, religion, ability and socio-economic circumstance;
Strong support of the ACLU and familiarity with civil rights and civil liberties issues.

SALARY AND BENEFITS:

Salary is based on experience and qualifications. Benefits include three weeks of vacation to start, medical and disability insurance, matching 401(k) plan and bus pass.

APPLICATION

To apply, email a letter of application and resume to Jobs@aclu-wa.org and include in the subject line of the email: your last name and Internet Operations Manager. In your letter, please indicate where you learned of the posting. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages

qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation,

and gender identity and expression to apply.

The ACLU of Washington comprises two separate corporate entities, the ACLU of Washington and the ACLU of Washington Foundation. The ACLU of Washington and the ACLU of Washington Foundation share the same mission, office space, and employees. This job posting refers collectively to the two organizations under the name “ACLU of Washington.”

Policy Advocacy Assistant (Full-Time)

robick — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:29:13 +0000

The ACLU of Washington is a non-profit public interest organization devoted to protecting civil rights and civil liberties. Its staff and numerous volunteers work in a fast-paced, friendly and professional office. The Policy Advocacy Assistant is part of the Policy Advocacy Group which includes legislative, field and policy staff. The Assistant primarily supports the Deputy Director, Field Director, and Legislative Director. The Deputy Director leads the policy advocacy work and coordinates multi-disciplinary, high impact campaigns that involve legal, legislative, education and community mobilization programs. The Field Director reaches out to supporters and to other organizations to identify commonalities and to elicit their support. The Legislative Director works with legislators, their staff, and allies to advance or oppose various pieces of legislation.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Provide administrative support to the Deputy, Field, and Legislative Directors; manage their calendars and electronic and paper files; make occasional travel arrangements.
With attention to detail and professionalism, draft, produce, and proof-read e-mails, letters, and other materials.
Arrange meetings, prepare background materials, and handle follow-up actions.
Communicate confidently and respectfully with legislative staff, ACLU leaders, and allies.
Handle production and distribution of field and legislative mailings.
Using online databases, track progress of relevant ballot initiatives.
Keep current on policy advocacy work and respond to questions from staff and others.
Supervise field volunteers and interns, assuring high levels of performance and efficiency.
Coordinate logistics of Field and Legislative events and assist staff with other events. Assignments may sometimes involve working with staff in other departments including assisting the Communications Department with outreach efforts.
Occasionally attend other ACLU events. Help facilitate the smooth running of the office and other tasks as assigned.

EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

At least two years of administrative experience, preferably related to non-profits or advocacy.
Excellent word processing skills. Computer proficiency, including mastery of MS Office Suite, including Excel, and the Internet; strong writing and online research skills.
Strong organizational skills to maintain record systems and to initiate improvements in consultation with supervisors.
Demonstrated ability to handle stress well, to produce work reflecting consistent attention to accuracy, and to coordinate numerous concurrent projects, often under tight deadlines.
Demonstrated ability to manage details, resourcefully solve problems and follow through with a minimum of direct supervision.
Ability to absorb and retain information regarding ACLU projects and legislation, and to communicate that information effectively to a variety of audiences.
Ability to reach out via phone and obtain results through persistent communication.
Excellent interpersonal skills; proven ability to work well with people with a wide range of interests, skills and concerns. A confident and professional presentation.
Ability to supervise volunteers and work cooperatively with diverse groups.
A commitment to diversity within the office; a personal approach that values the individual and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, religion, ability, and socio-economic circumstance.
An understanding of and enthusiasm for civil liberties and civil rights.
B.A. or equivalent.
Proficiency in Spanish is a plus.
A minimum two-year commitment is required.

SALARY AND BENEFITS

Salary is based on experience and qualifications. Benefits include three weeks of vacation to start, medical and disability insurance, matching 401(k) plan and bus pass.

HOW TO APPLY

To apply, email a letter of application, brief writing sample and resume to Jobs@aclu-wa.org and include in the subject line of the email: your last name and Policy Advocacy Assistant. In your letter, please indicate where you learned of the posting. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages

qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability,

sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression to apply.

Floyd and Delores Jones Legal Fellowship

Wed, 02 May 2012 23:06:54 +0000

The ACLU of Washington Foundation seeks applicants for a one-year legal fellowship, with an option to renew for a second year, in its Legal Department. The Floyd and Delores Jones Legal Fellow will work as a staff attorney to develop federal and state cases to advance civil liberties and civil rights, work with staff and volunteer attorneys in preparing and litigating cases, and participate in a broad range of related activities. As an integral part of the ACLU-WA’s Legal Department, the Fellow will report to the Legal Director and work cooperatively with other legal, legislative, field and communications staff in a fast-paced, friendly, and professional office.

THE ACLU OF WASHINGTON:

The ACLU of Washington (ACLU-WA) is among the largest of the state affiliates of the ACLU, with more than 20,000 members and a staff of 30. The ACLU-WA takes on clients and causes based on civil liberties and civil rights principles, paying particular attention to the rights of those who have historically been disenfranchised. The ACLU-WA directly litigates or participates as amicus curiae in 40-plus cases addressing free speech, racial justice, religious freedom, due process, privacy, reproductive and women's rights, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, voting rights and drug law reform. Our legal strategies are part of a multi-faceted approach to advocacy built on the belief that fighting for civil liberties and civil rights means not just persuading judges but ultimately changing the perceptions of society overall.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Investigate and litigate civil liberties and civil rights matters in federal and state courts. The work will include legal and factual research, interviewing clients and witnesses, drafting briefs and pleadings, conducting discovery, and motion practice. The Fellow may co-counsel cases with ACLU cooperating attorneys, providing leadership, support, supervision and back-up, as the circumstances require.

Engage in advocacy short of litigation, provide occasional legal analysis to advance other ACLU policy work, conduct community outreach for strategic docket development, and supervise law students. A part of this work involves building relationships with members of the private bar that encourage their involvement in ACLU work and participating in coalitions on complicated cases.

Along with other professional staff members, the Fellow may occasionally represent the ACLU publicly, as assigned. Occasional work on nights and weekends, may be necessary. Along with all employees, the Fellow helps maintain a positive, respectful, welcoming, and professional work environment for employees and volunteers.

QUALIFICATIONS

Experience: Applicants for the fellowship will have a J.D. and litigation experience, but may include exceptional recent law students with judicial clerkship experience. In either case, applicants need strong project management skills, proven success in working collaboratively and under pressure. Superior writing, research and verbal skills in presenting both to lawyers and to the non-lawyer public. Successful history of working with diverse communities and clients. Strong leadership and organizational skills to work cooperatively with staff and in coalitions on complicated cases. The ability to take initiative, think strategically, and share responsibility and credit. Strong facility with computerized legal research and electronic software, including Microsoft Office suite. Fluency in Spanish is a plus.

Attributes: Self-motivation, reliability and creativity, with strong problem solving skills. A strong commitment to civil liberties and civil rights issues. A commitment to diversity; a personal approach that values the individual and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and socio-economic circumstance.

The attorney must be a member of the Washington State Bar (or willing to take the next bar examination).

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS:

Salary is based on experience and qualifications. Benefits include three weeks vacation to start, medical and disability insurance, matching 401(k) plan and bus pass.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE:

To apply, email a letter of application and resume to Jobs@aclu-wa.org and include in the subject line of the email: your last name and Legal Fellowship. In your letter, please indicate where you learned of the posting. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages

qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability,

sexual orientation, and gender identity to apply.

Intake Counselor Internships

robick — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:23:19 +0000

Intake Counselor internships are available in the legal department of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation. A six month commitment is required, with a minimum of 12 hours each week.

Interns review and investigate complaints alleging violations of civil liberties and assist callers on the ACLU Intake and Referral Line. They address a broad spectrum of issues, including free speech, student discipline, police practices, criminal law, and jail and prison conditions.

Intake Counselor interns learn interview and investigation skills, explore a variety of civil liberties and constitutional law issues, and become familiar with the work of a wide range of government agencies and community organizations. The Intake Counselor internship provides excellent experience for individuals contemplating careers in public service, law, or public policy.

Applicants should have an interest in civil liberties, good interpersonal and analytical skills, and excellent writing skills. Spanish language proficiency is a plus. To apply, please submit a cover letter, résumé, list of three references, and a writing sample of approximately five pages in length to: legal@aclu-wa.org or to 901 Fifth Ave. #630, Seattle, WA 98164.

Legal Internships/Externships

robick — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:40:18 +0000

Open to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year law students

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU-WA) is pleased to offer unpaid summer and school-year intern/externships to interested law school students. A minimum commitment of 12 hours per week is required during the school year. Summer positions are full-time and last a minimum of seven weeks.

At the ACLU, law students gain exposure to a broad range of civil liberties and civil rights issues and an opportunity to improve legal writing and research skills. Students work closely with staff attorneys conducting legal research, writing legal memoranda and drafting correspondence to government agencies in response to documented complaints of civil liberties and civil rights violations. Students also assist ACLU attorneys in the development of cases for litigation, preparation of cases for trial and submission of amicus curiae briefs in courts of appeal.

Educational benefits include obtaining hands-on experience in applying constitutional theories and case law to legal problems, and learning how to conduct factual investigation of complaints. Students become familiar with administrative regulations and agency protocols, while developing a practical understanding of constitutional law. Academic credit can be arranged.

Prerequisites include academic standing as a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year law student during the duration of the externship/internship time period, an interest in civil liberties and civil rights, good interpersonal and analytical skills, and the ability to write in a clear and concise manner.

How to Respond:

Interested students should submit a cover letter, résumé and legal writing sample for a Spring 2012 Externship by November 30, 2011 and for a Summer 2012 Internship by December 31, 2011 to:

Legal Director
ACLU of Washington
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA, 98164

legalprogramassistant@aclu-wa.org

Women, people of color, LGTB people, and people with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply.

Policy Advocacy Internship Program

sdavies — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:13:25 +0000

Subject Area : Civil liberties law and policy including: free speech, free exercise of religion, campaign finance, criminal justice, death penalty, drug policy, racial justice, discrimination, privacy, reproductive choice and LGBT rights.

BACKGROUND

The ACLU is the nation’s premier organization dedicated to defending and expanding all civil liberties and civil rights in America. We work with our members and volunteers in the courts, legislature and media to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU of Washington is located in downtown Seattle and has over 20,000 members across the state. Our Policy Advocacy Group is supervised by our Deputy Director and includes our Legislative and Field Departments as well as our Technology and Liberty, Drug Policy and Education Equity Programs. We promote and protect civil liberties by working with elected officials and government agencies on the state and local level. We achieve our goals through lobbying and policy advocacy as well as educating our members and other activists about our issues and encouraging them to take action in support of our goals.

INTERN DUTIES

An intern with the Policy Advocacy Group will work under the supervision of the Deputy Director and will assist the Legislative Director or other senior staff to draft and promote proactive legislation, research legal and policy challenges to legislation introduced by others, create educational materials and assist in the preparation of testimony or other advocacy documents.

DESIRED SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

The intern will use his or her research skills to develop an in-depth understanding of civil liberties issues, policy advocacy, the legislative process and the art of messaging. Excellent writing and communications skills required. Applicants should have strong interests in civil liberties, constitutional law and policy advocacy. Candidates must have completed at least one year of law school.

AREAS OF INTEREST

The intern will work with many departments within the ACLU-WA in order to achieve our legislative goals. These include education, technology and privacy, and drug policy.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE

To apply, email resume, cover letter and writing sample to volunteerjobs@aclu-wa.org and include in the subject line of the email: your last name and PAG Internship. In your letter, please indicate where you learned of the posting.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity to apply.

Communications Internship

sdavies — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:12:27 +0000

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is the state arm of the ACLU, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership organization devoted to protecting, defending, and extending our freedoms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. The ACLU of Washington works through the courts, the legislature and local government, education, and community activism to defend our civil liberties across the state.

The Communications Department of the ACLU of Washington is responsible for educating the public about civil liberties issues and the work of the ACLU. Communications interns are utilized year-round to assist the department in achieving its goals.

The Communications Department typically uses one intern each academic term. Interns are encouraged to earn academic credit for their work, but volunteers are welcome. Average hours are 12-20 per week, with flexibility in days and hours according to each intern's needs. All positions are unpaid.

Responsibilities include:

Special events planning for a full range of community outreach activities including participation in events
Volunteer recruitment and coordination for various projects and events
Communicating with area teachers and allied organizations about ACLU-WA information and programs via telephone and direct mail campaigns
Basic office responsibilities such as mailings, processing requests for literature, photocopying, data entry, filing, etc.

The ACLU-WA office is located in the heart of downtown Seattle. The office is an exciting place to work and staff members are very friendly and supportive. Internships with the Communications Department offer you a chance to make a difference while you build your experience and resume.

HOW TO APPLY

To apply, please mail or email a letter of interest and resume. In your letter tell us where you learned of this position, why you would like to be an intern at the ACLU-WA and what civil liberties issues concern you the most. Respond by email to srobinson@aclu-wa.org or by post to Summer Robinson - ACLU-WA, 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630, Seattle, Washington 98164.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity to apply.

Join the ACLU of Washington's Volunteer Reception Team!

robick — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:41:54 +0000

The ACLU of Washington is a nonprofit organization devoted to defending and extending civil rights and civil liberties. Its staff and numerous volunteers, works in a fast-paced, friendly, and professional office. The Volunteer Receptionist can choose a regular schedule working a minimum of 1 shift per week, either mornings or afternoons, 9a – 1p or 1p – 5p. The Volunteer Receptionist reports to the Legal Intake Assistant and Reception Lead.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Serve as front desk receptionist, field incoming phone calls and direct them to the appropriate staff. Greet and direct visitors, including people seeking help, committee members, allies, and sales people. Provide general information about the ACLU. Calmly respond to people who are seeking ACLU’s help.
Retrieve and distribute mail; receive and sign for deliveries.
Handle typing, copying, data-entry, collating mailing materials and other assignments from the Special Assistant.
Assist in research, using the Internet and other resources.
Ensure that the front door and the phones are open and/or closed according to schedule.
Keep the In/Out Board updated, and post the daily conference room schedule.
Help facilitate smooth running of the office. Insure the neat appearance and organization of the reception, kitchen and supply room.
Help maintain a positive, respectful, welcoming, and professional work environment for employees, interns and other volunteers.

QUALIFICATIONS

Excellent communication skills over the phone and in person.
A welcoming, confident, and professional working manner, including the ability to work effectively with a wide variety of people. Good judgment and discretion are required.
Computer proficiency with PCs, Microsoft Word, Outlook and the Internet preferred. Attention to detail is a must.
Ability to multi-task and work efficiently in a fast-paced environment, to work under pressure.
Understanding of and enthusiasm for civil liberties.
A commitment to diversity; a personal approach that values the individual and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and socio-economic circumstance.
A minimum 6-month commitment is preferred.
We are also interested in volunteers who will be available to pick up additional volunteer reception hours when needed.

REWARDS

Exposure to important, cutting-edge issues with a lively and skilled team of advocates at the nation’s premier civil liberties organization.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE:

To apply, email a resume and cover letter to Volunteerjobs@aclu-wa.org and include in the subject line of the email: your last name and Volunteer Receptionist. In your letter, please indicate where you learned of the posting. Applications will be accepted until the positions are filled.

The ACLU is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and encourages qualified individuals of every race, creed, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity to apply.

Monthly: "Speaking of Freedom"

sdavies — Fri, 07 May 2010 22:00:26 +0000

TIME:8:00 pm - 8:30 pm

Civil Liberties on TV: Communications Director Doug Honig interviews guests on timely issues on the ACLU-WA's show on cable TV. Airs monthly on the Seattle Community Access Network (Comcast 77/Broadstripe 23); streaming live on the web at www.scantv.org. Later rebroadcast on cable systems in Clark, Cowlitz, Thurston, and Snohomish counties.

After 18 Years, Death Sentence and Murder Conviction Overturned

talner — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:31:29 +0000

As of May 10, there is one less person on Washington’s death row. The Washington Supreme Court’s overturning of Darold Stenson’s murder conviction provides a vital lesson about the flaws of our system of capital punishment: Even convictions and death sentences that may appear to be supported by strong evidence actually have major elements of doubt, and it takes time to discover the problems.

The state’s high court ruled 8-1 that Darold Stenson’s death penalty and conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Stenson was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1994 deaths of his wife and business partner. He asserted that the business partner was responsible for the deaths. Significant pieces of evidence used to convict Stenson were photographs, gunshot residue, and blood spatter evidence and expert analysis of those things.

At Stenson’s trial, the Clallam County prosecutor’s office failed to disclose to his lawyer information from the FBI file about that evidence which might have been helpful to his defense. The potentially favorable evidence came to light 18 years later when Stenson’s appellate attorneys raised an actual innocence claim. In investigating the claim, they discovered the previously withheld evidence.

In striking language, the Court explained that a serious constitutional violation had occurred and could not be overlooked, as this meant that the defendant did not have the necessary full benefit of due process protections.

Stenson, in our judgment, has met his burden of showing that there is a reasonable probability that, had the FBI file and photographs been disclosed to the defense, the result of his trial would have been different. Because we believe the newly discovered evidence undermines confidence in the jury verdict, we reverse Stenson's convictions and death sentence and remand for a new trial. We conclude that the trial court correctly found that the FBI file and photographs are favorable to Stenson and that the evidence was wrongfully suppressed by the State. We conclude, as a matter of law, that the suppression of the photographs and FBI file prejudiced Stenson.

Stenson might well have been executed and it would have been too late to correct the constitutional error that occurred. Too often in Washington and around the country, death sentences have been obtained based on some form of legal error. In this case, vigorous advocacy by Stenson’s defense team brought injustice to light, but in too many cases that does not happen.

What can be done? The ACLU is working with the Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty in the Safe and Just Alternatives Campaign. It seeks to end the death penalty in our state and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without parole. Connecticut recently became the latest state to end capital punishment, recognizing that our criminal justice system is far from perfect and the State should not take a life when safe and just alternatives are available. To learn how to get involved in the campaign in Washington state, see sjawa.org.

The full opinion can be found here.

Eye-in-the- Sky Drones: Will Seattle Set Satisfactory Safeguards?

ktaylor — Fri, 04 May 2012 17:11:08 +0000

A week ago, on a Friday afternoon, a reporter called us with news that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) had received permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to employ two unmanned aerial drones it had purchased.

City officials declined to comment. Did the ACLU have anything to say? You bet!

Police drones may have valuable uses, but they also provide an unprecedented ability for the government to engage in surveillance of the activities of law-abiding people. We called for the mayor and city council to develop clear and transparent policies to safeguard privacy and free speech rights, and for public dialogue about the use of police drones over Seattle’s skies.

The dialogue quickly began. “Eye-in-sky SPD drones stir privacy concerns” proclaimed the top front-page article in the next morning’s Seattle Times. Garnering 337 online responses, it became the paper’s most commented upon story of the weekend. And the local Fox TV affiliate cited the national ACLU’s report, “Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance,” and its warning that our nation’s current privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values.

A contrite assistant police chief appeared before the Seattle City Council this week to assure city leaders and the public that the drones would not be deployed until written policies for their use are in place. He promised that police would work with the ACLU and others in the community to draft them. We believe the elected city officials, not just the police department, need to take the lead in safeguarding our privacy.

The ACLU is calling for the city to specify what kind of information can be collected, who can collect it, how the information can be used, and how long it can be kept. And we want an auditing process to make sure the policies are followed.

After revelations of widespread police abuses, Seattle in 1979 became the nation’s first city to enact a strong law curbing police spying on lawful free speech activities. Our Police Investigations Ordinance prohibits law enforcement from maintaining files on the political activities of individuals and groups without suspicion of criminal activity.

Now the ACLU-WA is pressing the city’s officials to show similar leadership – by acting to ensure that police drones are not used to engage in intrusive surveillance expeditions that do not respect the privacy of Americans.

The Feds Make It Clear: People with Records Deserve a Fair Shake

vhernandez — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:02:07 +0000

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently updated their guidance for employers, trying to ensure that individuals with criminal records are not automatically denied job opportunities. The action is important for people I work with – people who are still being denied jobs because of mistakes they made years ago.

My clients are trying their hardest to live productive lives. Like Ms. C, who, 32 years ago was convicted of welfare fraud (she failed to report an attempted reconciliation with her abusive then-husband). Or Mr. G, who, when homeless 6 years ago, hid in a bathroom on a college campus overnight and was convicted of trespass. Or Ms. R, who was convicted of drug possession 19 years ago but has been clean and sober since.

Every single one of my clients has been denied a job in the past year on the basis of their criminal record. Ms. C was denied a job as an administrative assistant, despite the fact that she had been working in the field for 30 years. Mr. G was denied a position doing data entry for a temp agency. And Ms. R was fired from her job as a cook at a nursing home, despite the fact that she had worked there for over 8 years. All of them were told that the employer wanted people with “clean” criminal records.

We should celebrate people who manage to turn their lives around and who are working hard to support themselves and their families. Denying job opportunities to people on the basis of events long past is inconsistent with America’s billing as the “land of second chances.” It doesn’t make workplaces safer, because studies have shown that, after a certain period of time, people who have been convicted of a crime are no more likely to commit a future crime than any random person. And, as the EEOC has reiterated, it’s illegal.

The agency’s updated guidance clarifies for employers that they cannot “screen” out an applicant simply because he/she has a criminal record. That practice violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because it has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and Latinos. Instead, employers should use “targeted” screens that take into account the nature of the conviction, the time that has passed, and the specific duties and nature of the job. And, most importantly, the EEOC recommends that employers individually assess each applicant who is screened. Employers should consider a number of factors that are relevant to the risk a person poses, including their work history, efforts at rehabilitation, and age at the time of conviction.

Employers don’t have to ignore criminal history, and can deny jobs to people whose records make clear that they will pose a risk. But they can’t just assume that everyone who has a record will be a bad employee. At the end of the day, the EEOC says that employers should treat people with criminal records as individual human beings. And for my clients, that’s just the type of second chance they need.

Vanessa Torres Hernandez manages the ACLU-WA of Washington’s Criminal Records Project, which provides direct legal services to people whose criminal records pose a barrier to housing and employment.

Colleges Withdraw Proposals to Limit Free Speech on Campus

honig — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:18:04 +0000

A version of this article appeared on the Stranger Slog.

It makes sense that the Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly. The ability to freely express thoughts and ideas is essential to maintaining a vibrant democracy. Our Washington State Constitution recognizes this, too, and likewise provides strong protection for freedom of expression.

So it was no big surprise that Seattle Community College officials this week announced they were withdrawing proposals for controversial regulations that restrict freedom of speech on campus. The ideas for changes came in the wake of Occupy Seattle activities at Seattle Central’s campus. Whatever the intention, the proposals didn’t live up to constitutional standards in several ways. The ACLU-WA testified about the proposals’ constitutional infirmities amid a parade of faculty members and students who roasted them at a public hearing on April 5.

The Seattle Community Colleges Board of Trustees is considering greatly scaled-back regulations—having removed the proposals that the ACLU dinged as violating free-speech rights—at a 4:00 p.m. meeting today. We hope these controversial proposals are indeed dead.

To get a sense of why college authorities beat a hasty and welcome retreat—and as a lesson for the future in the pitfalls of trying to limit protest on a public college campus—here’s what the ACLU thought about the proposals:
Prior Restraint: The proposal required all “noncollege groups” to provide notice to the campus public safety department 24 hours prior to engaging in lawful protest activities. This is a classic example of what’s known as a “prior restraint” – that is, when you have to notify a government entity before you can engage in free speech activities. The courts have long held that such a restriction violates the state constitution – i.e., legally it’s a no-no. The requirement is even less tenable in an era when Facebook, Twitter, and texting allow people to mobilize protests very rapidly in response to the latest developments on an issue.
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: Government entities, like a community college system, can impose time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech, but in limited circumstances – among other things, the restrictions must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a compelling government interest. One proposal demanded that no individual carry more than one sign, no matter the size. This is what pundits like to call a “head scratcher” – something that so defies logical explanation as to reduce one to scratching one’s head in bewilderment. Judges would likely be very hard-pressed to understand what compelling government interest it serves.
Another proposal limited the amount of time an individual may engage in free speech activity on campus to eight hours for students, five hours for non-students. Arbitrarily limiting the time of free speech is not a narrowly tailored restriction. Still another proposed restriction limited non-student access to campus for free speech activities to a relatively small area of campus. Though such “speech zones” are popular with authorities, ease of administration is not a sufficient reason to justify limiting where people can express themselves.
Banning Material with Protected Speech: The administration proposed to ban the distribution of all material that advocates unlawful conduct. But the First Amendment bars the government from forbidding such advocacy unless it is meant to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. A restriction like this would, for example, prevent an activist like Martin Luther King, Jr. from distributing flyers urging a peaceful sit-in at the college.
Overly Vague Regulation. A proposed rule allowed administrators to eject from campus a person who engages in a free speech activity that “disrupts the orderly functioning of the college.” Fair enough, one might think. But the regulation did not define what “orderly functioning” means, nor does it set any criteria for what activity rises to the level of a “disruption.” So in practice, it granted broad discretion to administrators to make the call. Courts typically strike down such rules for being impermissibly vague.

Warrantless Searches: Once again, Washington Supreme Court Protects Privacy

dklunder — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:37:59 +0000

Last Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court decided a case (State v. Snapp/Wright) involving the warrantless search of a couple of cars after the drivers had been arrested and secured in patrol cars. Both drivers had been arrested for drug offenses, and the police claimed there was reason to believe drugs would be found in the cars (although, in fact, no drugs were found in one case). Searches like that are allowed under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, due to an exception created by the U.S. Supreme Court a couple of years ago (in the Gantt case).

The question facing the Washington Supreme Court was whether those searches violated Article 1, Section 7 of our state constitution, whose privacy protection is stronger than the Fourth Amendment. By a vote of 8-1, the Court agreed with the ACLU-WA that these searches violated the state constitution.

We had submitted a friend-of-the-court brief emphasizing the importance of a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate to effectively protect privacy. Without a magistrate’s intervention prior to the intrusive search, there is no effective check on overzealous police officers, since there is no practical remedy for an unlawful search after the fact.

In addition, allowing a warrantless search based on a “reasonable belief” creates the wrong incentives for police, encouraging improper searches of innocent people. After all, if there truly is reason to believe there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle, it is easy enough for the officer to secure the vehicle and obtain a warrant. It’s only in cases where a warrant would be difficult to obtain—cases where there is nothing more than a hunch at play—that this exception comes into play. It encourages officers to go ahead and search, and then try to come up with justification after the fact (and after evidence/contraband is found) as to why there was reason to believe it would be found. Of course, that is likely to result in many searches of innocent people which turn up nothing. Only the certainty of inadmissibility will prevent such abuses.

Especially pleasing is the language the Court used. It emphasized the difference between our state constitution and the Fourth Amendment. Under the latter, the most important question is the “reasonableness” of a search, and we have seen too often over the years how courts can decide after the fact that a search was reasonable.

In contrast, under our Article 1, Section 7, the key question is whether or not a search is supported by “authority of law”—either a warrant, or a “narrowly applied” exception to the warrant requirement. Here, there is an historical exception to the warrant requirement, allowing searches incident to the arrest of a person. But the exception exists only for the narrow purposes of ensuring that an arrestee can’t grab a weapon or destroy evidence. As the Court recognized, those purposes no longer exist once an arrestee is handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. The Court refused to bend the line: “The authority of law to search under article I, section 7 is not simply a matter of pragmatism and convenience.”

Once again, I’m proud to live in a state with such strong privacy protection in its constitution—and with a state Supreme Court that repeatedly embraces that protection, rather than looking for ways around it.

US Supreme Court Strips Away Rights, but Washington Law Covers Privacy

talner — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:14:37 +0000

Monday mornings can be difficult for all of us, but this week an extra distressing piece of news arrived at the week’s start. It was the United States Supreme Court’s ruling grossly expanding the circumstances in which a person can be strip-searched. It’s a reminder of one reason I’m glad that I live in Washington state.

The case is called Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, and I do mean the ruling was “gross.” The man who was strip-searched, Albert Florence, had been convicted of two minor unspecified offenses in 1998 and sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003 he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, so a bench warrant for his arrest was issued. He paid the full outstanding balance on his fine less than a week later. Case closed, you would think.

But then things got worse. A lot worse.

“For some unexplained reason,” (the Court’s own words), the warrant remained in the statewide computer database used by police to determine who should be arrested, even though the fine had been fully paid. Also unexplained by the Court is what basis the police had for stopping Mr. Florence while he was driving two years later. But because the warrant showed up in the database despite his having paid the fine, Mr. Florence was hauled off to jail (actually two different jails; six days in one and two in another). Here is what was done to him there:

Jail procedures required every arrestee to shower with a delousing agent. Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed. Petitioner claims he was also instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. …

When petitioner was transferred [to the second jail], all arriving detainees passed through a metal detector and waited in a group holding cell for a more thorough search. When they left the holding cell, they were instructed to remove their clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband. Apparently without touching the detainees, an officer looked at their ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpits, and other body openings. This policy applied regardless of the circumstances of the arrest, the suspected offense, or the detainee’s behavior, demeanor, or criminal history. Petitioner alleges he was required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough in a squatting position as part of the process. After a mandatory shower, during which his clothes were inspected, petitioner was admitted to the facility. He was released the next day, when the charges against him were dismissed.

Mr. Florence was understandably upset about the humiliating invasion of privacy the strip searches subjected him to. Even one of the Justices who voted to approve the strip search agrees: “Undergoing such an inspection is undoubtedly humiliating and deeply offensive to many.” A more accurate description is found in the dissent: “[P]ractices similar to those at issue here are ‘demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing, [and] repulsive, signifying degradation and submission.’”

And remember, Mr. Florence had already paid the fine and it was the government that inexplicably failed to correct its records regarding the warrant. But it was all perfectly lawful, the Supreme Court majority said. Jails have “a responsibility to ensure that jails are not made less secure by reason of what new detainees may carry in on their bodies,” regardless of how little justification there was for Mr. Florence being in jail in the first place. As the ACLU’s national Legal Director pointed out, the ruling “jeopardizes the privacy rights of millions of people.” (http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-says-supreme-court-decision-upholding-strip-searches-puts-privacy-rights )

Fortunately, Washingtonians value their privacy more. We prohibit strip searches of minor offenders booked into jail.

Our state law was passed in 1986 after ACLU-WA led the effort to get a bill restricting strip searches at jails. It’s RCW 10.79.130(1). We knew just how awful widespread strip searches could be from having litigated three cases in the early 1980s, in which women booked into jail after arrests for minor charges were strip-searched. We leveraged the publicity resulting from successful settlements to help gain passage of a statewide prohibition on strip searches of pretrial detainees unless there is reasonable suspicion the person is hiding weapons or contraband, or probable cause to believe they are hiding evidence. The statute isn't perfect; it doesn't apply to arrests for drug offenses, but it does protect most minor offenders – including protestors arrested for civil disobedience.

Washington also has one of the strongest protections of personal privacy in the country in our state constitution, and the ACLU-WA regularly files friend of the court briefs defending the strength of that protection.

We'll have to work carefully to maintain the law protecting our privacy from unwarranted strip searches. But we can take pride in the fact that our statute, along with those in several other states, was cited by the four dissenting justices as evidence that reasonable limitations on strip searches do not, in fact, threaten jail security.

Secure Communities Program Makes Communities Less Secure

snarayan — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:09:39 +0000

Earlier today, the ACLU of Washington joined a number of allies in the immigrant rights community, including El Comite Pro-Reforma Migratoria and CASA Latina, at a press conference in opposition to the ever-expanding Secure Communities (S Comm) program. The press conference was a response to the federal government's move last week, with very little fanfare or publicity, to activate the program for all counties in Washington.

Here's why that's bad news for every community in Washington. While S Comm is supposedly about protecting community safety, what it really does is the opposite – increase local communities' distrust of law enforcement, encourage racial profiling, and undermine basic due process protections. The program operates by running every single person arrested in Washington through an incomplete and error-ridden federal database – resulting in some people being flagged, detained, and turned over to the feds even if they committed no crime. Even worse, the feds are now forcing the program on all Washington counties with no public process, and after a period of years during which local governments had been assured that they didn't have to opt into the program (only a handful in the statechose to do so).

Throughout the ACLU's work on police accountability, one issue that keeps coming up over and over is the fact that the police cannot do their jobs without the trust of the communities they serve. But S Comm turns local cops into de facto immigration agents, and this will now be true even if the local police department themselves don't want to be seen as such. Immigrant communities and communities of color, including many legal US citizens and permanent residents, will now hesitate to work with the police, leading to less secure communities, not more.

The program also invites racial profiling, as was documented in an excellent report from a UC Berkeley Law professor, Aarti Kohli, last year. As she points out, S Comm operates at the pretrial level, meaning that an individual could be detained and turned over to the feds even if he or she did not commit the crime for which the arrest was supposedly made. This gives law enforcement a perverse incentive to make more stops of those whom the police believe are undocumented (most likely Latinos), even if there is no basis for that belief, because the individual could be detained whether or not they commited any crime. We have enough racial profiling already – let's not open that door even wider.

And last year's report and other data also show severe due process deficiencies with the S Comm program, including lower representation rates, lower rates of relief, and higher rates of detention for people coming through the program, as opposed to those in the broader immigration system. The real kicker, though, is that a significant percentage of people snared by the program have a US citizen spouse or child, meaning this program is also tearing American families and communities apart.

It's time to stop blowing our tax dollars on a program that can't be fixed, despite the piecemeal reforms the feds have periodically announced (another round of changes will likely be announced shortly by the Department of Homeland Security). The truth is that the whole premise of S Comm – that local police can enforce federal immigration laws – is fundamentally flawed. It's time to stop the tinkering. DHS and the feds need to end this program, not mend it.

MLK and Race: The Ongoing Conversation

nygren — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:15:14 +0000

The ACLU of Washington’s offices are graced with moving and inspiring photos, including many of our past clients. Occupying pride of place in the ACLU conference room, however, is a vintage photo of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, April 4, 2012, marks the 44^th anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination.

In the week that we reflect on Dr. King’s legacy, we have all too many reminders of the ongoing stain of America’s original sin of racism – from the issues raised by the killing of Trayvon Martin to the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding this week that the repeated strip searches of Albert Florence did not violate his constitutional rights. (Florence, an African-American man in New Jersey, was mistakenly arrested on an incorrect criminal warrant; during his incarceration he was twice subjected to extremely invasive strip searches. A trial court agreed that Florence’s civil rights had been violated, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 decision, disagreed.)

And the curious episode of the “Hunger Games tweets” is a vivid illustration that racial ignorance is not solely the province of an aging demographic of people raised in an era when prejudiced comments in public were widely tolerated. (Just check out an episode of “Mad Men” to get the flavor of that thankfully bygone time.) A Canadian fan of the popular book and movie noted a disturbing trend on Hunger Games fan sites and Twitter feeds, “readers who could not believe—or accept—that Rue and Thresh, two of the most prominent and beloved characters in the book, were black, had been posting vulgar racial remarks.” A typical comment: “I was pumped about the Hunger Games. Until I learned that a black girl was playing Rue,” wrote @JohnnyKnoxIV. The clever fan put together a Tumblr feed filled with screen shots of the thoughtless and crude comments.

Here in Washington state you don’t have to look far to find examples of racial bias in society and in the criminal justice system in particular. Take, for instance the disparity in arrest rates for cannabis use between whites and African Americans – despite the fact that usage rates in the two populations are virtually identical.

Last year, the Washington Supreme Court examined a case (State v. Monday) in which a white prosecutor mimicked the voice of black witnesses and asserted during closing argument that “Black folk don’t testify against black folk.” The Court issued a strongly worded opinion that appeals to racial bias undermine the fundamental right to a fair trial.

In addition, a growing body of social science research is demonstrating not only the fallibility of eyewitness identification in criminal cases, but also that the race of witnesses as well as that of alleged criminals may affect the accuracy of a witness’s testimony. In a case in which ACLU-WA and a number of other social justice organizations submitted briefs, the Washington State Supreme Court recently heard argument on the issue.

Pundits and politicians have for decades issued calls for a “national dialogue on race.” The reality is that Americans have many such conversations every day. And a look at the comments section of any online news story on race and justice issues shows that they are often shamefully ugly. The realities that incidents such as the Hunger Games tweets illustrate are sobering. Yet they also provide “teachable moments” to remind all of us that despite talk of a “post-racial America,” we still have a long way to go. And a lot more talking to do.

“Tough on Crime” Is Tough on Budgets: Ten Ideas to Improve Our Justice System

talner — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:27:45 +0000

co-authored with Mark Cooke, ACLU-WA Drug Policy Advocate

The human toll caused by our state’s addiction to being “tough on crime” was made painfully obvious ina recent story in the Seattle Times. The article explains that about 150 inmates every week start serving their prison sentences at the Corrections Center in Shelton. Writes reporter Jennifer Sullivan: “Most are destined to spend their first days in prison as ‘rugs,’ the term used by inmates and corrections officers to describe offenders who have to sleep on the concrete floor of cells because of overcrowding. The newcomers bed down on thin rubber mats spread out between the cell's toilet and sink – just feet from two occupied bunks.”

And the worst is yet to come. The article notes that our state is expected to need 900 new prison beds by 2016. But it lacks the money to build them because of the severe budget crisis. Even with significant efforts to reduce expenses, the state spends about $90 a day on each inmate. And the cost to our humanity every day that more young men become “rugs” is incalculable.

Isn’t it time to stop this approach to criminal justice? Don’t we have better things to spend the money on?

Inspired by David Letterman, here is our list of 10 Ideas for saving money by putting fewer people in prisons and jails, and being “smart” on criminal justice instead of simply being punitive.

1) Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana for adult use and eliminate thousands of arrests and unnecessary incarcerations every year. Which is just what the ACLU-supported I-502 would do.

2) Reform the Three Strikes law by reducing the number of crimes that are “strikes” and giving offenders a way to earn a reduced sentence based on rehabilitation, instead of confinement until they die. “Three Strikes” may sound like a good slogan, but it’s bad policy to keep people locked up when they get older and are highly unlikely to commit crimes.

3) Fund gang prevention and intervention rather than broaden the net to snare gang-vulnerable youth into the criminal justice system.

4) Eliminate the crime of Driving While License Suspended Third Degree. We don’t need to put people behind bars after their license was suspended for failure to pay tickets. This year’s passage of SB 6284 is a great start.

5) End the imposition of non-restitution Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs). These court-imposed financial sanctions create a debtor’s prison cycle for impoverished individuals and their families.

6) End the death penalty. While Washington’s death row is much smaller than that of some states, the cost of pursuing capital cases puts a great strain on criminal justice budgets. For a single death penalty trial in Washington, taxpayers pay nearly $800,000 in additional costs beyond what is spent on a non-death penalty trial for aggravated murder. The ACLU-WA is involved with the Safe and Just Alternatives Campaign in working to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life in prison without parole.

7) Provide local governments and law enforcement agencies with incentives to use alternatives to incarceration.

8) Improve the system so that mentally ill suspects and offenders aren't needlessly thrown in prison rather than receiving treatment.

9) Reduce barriers in employment and housing faced by individuals with a criminal records and fund re-entry programs for people who are no longer incarcerated. Making it difficult for individuals to find stable employment and housing makes it more likely that some will revert to criminal activities and end up back in jail.

10) Collect better data and require periodic analysis of whether a criminal law is having its intended effect of protecting public safety in a cost-effective manner; and require this kind of evaluation for every new crime being considered by the Legislature.

End the Federal Ban on Syringe Exchange Funding

mcooke — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:25:07 +0000

Few public health interventions have been proven as effective as syringe exchange programs, which have been in existence since the 1980’s. As a recent article in The Atlantic put it:

Syringe exchanges, are internationally credited with dramatically reducing HIV and hepatitis infections among injection drug users. They've also been proven to link addicted people to care (PDF), save taxpayers millions of dollars in health care costs, and help keep syringes off the streets, protecting both cops and kids.

Despite the evidence, the U.S. federal government refused to fund these programs for decades, for purely political reasons. This all changed in 2009 when the ban was finally lifted. Unfortunately, this policy change would be short lived.

In December 2011 the federal funding ban was reestablished when Congress adopted an amendment added by Republican lawmakers to a budget bill. As one syringe exchange proponent stated, “Reinstating the ban is murderous. It's saying that people who use drugs should contract fatal and expensive diseases and die.”

Here in Washington state, many syringe exchange programs are in dire need of funding. In Spokane, the main syringe exchange program expects to trade more than one million clean needles for dirty ones this year, despite drastic budget cuts.

Failure to fund syringe exchange programs is inhumane and will end up costing taxpayers dollars by failing to curb preventable diseases, such as HIV and Hepatitis. As a result, advocates from the Harm Reduction Coalition are working to reinstate federal funds. They’ve organized a Day of Action to end the ban. Please visit their website to learn more (http://harmreduction.org/syringe-access/syringe-access-policy-advocacy/day-of-action-on-syringe-exchange/).

Humiliated, But Not Beaten: Fighting Back for Pregnant and Parenting Teens in Washington

lmangel — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:23:54 +0000

When eighth-grader Shantelle Hicks learned she was pregnant, she was determined to stick with her education. But the administrators at her New Mexico middle school said she was a “bad example” and told her she couldn’t remain in school.

It didn’t stop there. After the school was forced to readmit her when the ACLU of New Mexico told them their conduct was illegal, Shantelle was forced to stand in front of hundreds of her classmates during a school assembly while the administrators announced that she was pregnant – before anyone but her sister knew.

While this happened in New Mexico, it reminds us of the discrimination, intimidation, and humiliation faced every day by pregnant teenagers in Washington. These are girls who, despite their best efforts, end up dropping out – either because they’ve been overtly kicked out or subtly coerced out.

Many people are surprised when they learn that pregnant and parenting teens are still routinely pushed out of school – most assume it is a thing of the past. Not true.

Over the past year, through the ACLU-WA Pregnant and Parenting Student Project, we have spoken to hundreds of social service providers and youth who share stories about mistreatment:

school principals who tell girls they must go to an alternative school;
counselors who incorrectly advise girls that they’ll be reported as truant if they take too much time off for doctors’ visits or childbirth;
favorite teachers telling pregnant students they’ve “ruined their lives” and may as well “give-up;”
peers who taunt and isolate pregnant students.

All of this can be illegal, and all of it contributes to the staggering drop-out rate for pregnant and parenting students. No one knows for sure how many of these students drop out each year, but studies suggest that pregnancy is the leading reason girls drop out of school. And there is strong evidence suggesting that illegal discrimination by school officials is a leading cause.

In an effort to learn more about the experiences of these students and the potentially illegal practices of schools, the ACLU-WA has begun surveying pregnant and parenting teens in Washington. We’re asking them why they dropped out and what, if anything, helped them stay in school. We hope to use this information to promote Model School Policies on the treatment of pregnant and parenting students, and to work with school districts to promote best practices for helping these young women complete their education. We hope to share some preliminary results of the survey soon.

Do you have a story of your own?

If you or someone you know personally has been treated poorly at school because they are pregnant or have a child, please let us know. We may be able to help, and your story may help others in the same situation.

To send a confidential email, click here.

Read more about the ACLU of New Mexico’s lawsuit, as told by Shantelle Hicks in her own words: http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights-lgbt-rights-...

Combating Housing Discrimination: Moving Beyond Narrow Definitions of Families

vhernandez — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:09:25 +0000

Two years ago, Michelle DeShane wanted to add her partner Mitch, a transgender man, to the housing voucher she receives to find affordable housing. The local housing authority in Richland refused and told her that the couple did not meet its definition of a “family.” Then it referred the DeShanes to a neighboring housing authority, because, as they were apparently told, that housing authority “accepts everyone – even Martians.”

What happened to the DeShanes is wrong. And it’s about to change. Last month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced new rules to combat housing discrimination against LGBT families. These rules make clear that housing that is financed or insured by HUD must be available to all families, regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or marital status. They also prohibit lenders considering sexual orientation or gender identity and expression when determining whether to accept an application for a Federal Housing Act (FHA)-insured mortgage.

The new rules also respond to comments by the ACLU and other civil rights group by ensuring that the rules apply to every group receiving federal HUD funds, even religious groups. So, a religious organization that also administers HUD housing will no longer be permitted to deny and discriminate against applicants based on their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Religious organizations that provide wholly private housing services are not affected by the rule.

To quote HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, “This is an idea whose time has come.” Housing is too important to be denied based on narrow definitions of what makes a “family.” HUD’s mission is to “create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.” By explicitly recognizing that LGBT families have equal rights to access housing, HUD moves one step closer to fulfilling its mission.

You can find more information about the HUD rules here. The rules will go into effect in about a month.

Facebook, blogs, cell phones: Learn the new ABCs of student rights

sdavies — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:35:23 +0000

Text messaging, YouTube, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter have joined books and pencils as part of the everyday reality of being in school. Online and mobile communications innovations raise new and old questions about the legal rights of public school students. Do you know the ABCs of student rights in the digital age? Take our quiz to find out.

Small Crimes, Big Consequences: Why Fairness in Municipal Courts is so Important

talner — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:50:29 +0000

Since there are 8 to 10 million misdemeanor cases in courts around the United States each year¹, chances are good that you or someone you know may end up facing a misdemeanor charge at some point in their life. Misdemeanor courts are a “window to the judicial branch for many people who do not normally have contact with the judicial system.”²

While no one wants to be convicted, some might think a misdemeanor conviction is not that big a deal in the long run; it is just a one-time instance of shoplifting or suspended driver’s license or fighting, right? Wrong.

Aside from the jail time and fees and fines that may be imposed as part of a misdemeanor sentence, there can be life-long consequences of a misdemeanor charge. In connection with our work on criminal records issues, the ACLU has heard from numerous individuals denied housing or jobs because of a misdemeanor on their record. This is happening even if the offense occurred many years ago and there are no recent arrests or charges. Some of the most distressing cases involve military veterans who, suffering from PTSD and addiction, rack up misdemeanor charges before they are able to access services that assist them in turning their lives around. Despite their rehabilitation, the consequences of their misdemeanor records continue to haunt them for years. Misdemeanor convictions can also result in deportation, loss of gun rights, restrictions on international travel, and ineligibility for student loans, professional licenses, public housing and food assistance.

In Washington state, misdemeanor cases are usually handled in municipal or district court. In part because so many people are affected by misdemeanor cases and their consequences, the ACLU-WA is participating in a lawsuit challenging the shockingly deficient public defense systems in two municipal courts. We are concerned that the public defenders were spending only half an hour on most of their cases, despite the serious consequences that can result. A federal judge recently ruled the case can go forward against the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. The court also granted the case class-action status.

¹ April 2009 report by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers “Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts”

² In re Michels, 150 Wn.2d 159, 174, 75 P.3d 950 (2003) (Washington Supreme Court)

LEADing the way in dealing with substance abuse problems

mcooke — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:49:10 +0000

The Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), an innovative pre-booking diversion pilot program, has now been operating since the fall of 2011.

The ACLU of Washington is proud to be part of LEAD’s Policy Coordinating Group and believes that LEAD offers a more pragmatic and cost-effective way for dealing with substance abuse problems than traditional criminal law enforcement.

Instead of arresting low-level drug offenders and prosecuting them, law enforcement diverts them to community-based treatment and support services.

LEAD was developed with the community to address the open air drug markets in Seattle and King County. The pilot project is currently operating in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood and will soon expand to the Skyway neighborhood of unincorporated King County.

A new website has been created for the LEAD program (www.LEADKingCounty.org), which provides a good overview of the program.

King County TV has also produced a short segment on LEAD:

(Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.)