The legislature’s focus this year is on a huge budget deficit that will force program cuts on top of those already made in 2011. This will make it more challenging to advance some of our policy priorities, though the drive to extend civil marriage to lesbian and gay couples entered the session as already a high-profile story. The budget crisis also will require our vigilance in watching for budget deals that include bad policies on civil liberties issues.
This is the 60-day “short” session of our state’s biennial legislative cycle, so there is less time for considering and refining proposals. And some decisions may be made with eyes on the elections coming up next fall. With the two political parties unable to agree on a budget, a special session has now been called. The ACLU-WA is continuing to watch the proceedings carefully, to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the extra session.
For 2012, the ACLU-WA’s legislative program is focused on four big priorities – gaining marriage equality for same-sex couples, legalizing and regulating marijuana, replacing the death penalty, and safeguarding rights amid proposals addressing gangs.
Support our legislative agenda by signing up to GET ALERTS – you’ll receive action alerts so you can take action when key bills are pending. And can always let your law-makers know your views by calling the free Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Bill: HB 2516/SB 6239
Sponsors: Rep. Pederson, Sen. Murray
Position: Support
Status: Passed the Senate by 28-21 vote, passed the House by a 55-43 vote, signed into law by Gov. Gregoire on Feb. 13.
The freedom to marry the person you love is fundamental to a democratic society. It is a matter of basic fairness that all loving, committed couples should be able to marry legally, regardless of sexual orientation.
With public attitudes toward lesbians and gays shifting dramatically in recent years, there is a major push to extend access to civil marriage to same-sex couples this session. The campaign is being led by Washington United for Marriage, a broad coalition of civil rights groups, faith-based organizations, unions, and business associations formed last fall. The ACLU-WA is heavily involved in the effort and has a seat on its governing committee.
The drive for marriage equality received a boost in early January from a heart-felt endorsement by Gov. Chris Gregoire. While acknowledging that coming to support legal marriage for all couples had been a “personal journey,” she pointed out that same-sex couples face the same hurdles as others seeking to build strong families. “How can we tell some children that their parents’ love is less equal than that of others?” she asked.
The state legislature has been on its own journey toward full acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships. In 2007 it passed a domestic partnership law which provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. In 2009, the legislature passed and voters statewide later upheld a bill that expanded those rights to include all the rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have – "everything-but-marriage.” But couples still need the recognition for their relationships that civil marriage confers.
Washington has now joined New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, and the District of Columbia in treating same-sex couples equally.
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
Initiative 502
Position: Support
Status: Had a hearing on Feb. 9 before Senate Government Operations Committee and the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee, was not voted upon.
Since the year 2000, over 100,000 adults have been arrested for marijuana possession in Washington state. In addition to criminalizing peaceful drug users, current laws have violated civil liberties in many ways – eroding protections against intrusive searches and seizures, costing productive people opportunities at scholarships and employment, having disproportionate impacts on communities of color.
It’s time for a new approach to marijuana policy in Washington state. Large segments of the public recognize that the “lock’em up” mentality of the War on Drugs has failed and that we should focus law enforcement resources on serious crimes rather than marijuana users. They are open to creating a tightly regulated system that generates tax revenue for our state and local governments.
The ACLU-WA strongly supports New Approach Washington’s Initiative 502 to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana for adults. The initiative would authorize the Washington State Liquor Control Board to regulate the production and distribution of marijuana for sale to adults 21 and over through private state-licensed stores. A new marijuana excise tax would be earmarked for prevention, research, education, and health care. Laws prohibiting driving under the influence would be amended to include maximum thresholds for THC blood concentration.
I-502 is sponsored by prominent individuals in civic life and the public health and legal communities, and it has attracted broad-based support. Backers include former U.S. Attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, and Charles Mandigo, former head of the Seattle FBI Office. The state’s two largest newspapers, the Seattle Times and Spokane’s Spokesman-Review, have endorsed the measure.
New Approach Washington gathered more than the necessary 241,153 valid signatures for I-502, and the initiative has been certified by the Secretary of State's office. It will appear on the November ballot. To learn more or to volunteer for the campaign, see www.NewApproachWA.org.
Related Links:
Testimony on I-502: Criminal enforcement of marijuana doesn’t work
A.P: Marijuana legalization initiative set to go on Nov. ballot
SAFE AND JUST ALTERNATIVES
Bill: HB 2468/SB 6283
Sponsors: Rep. Carlyle, Sen. Regala
Position: Support
Status: Had a hearing on Jan. 25 in Senate Judiciary Committee, did not pass out of committee
Momentum is building across the country to reconsider use of the death penalty. There is a growing recognition that the capital punishment system is broken beyond repair. The death penalty is costly and ineffective – it neither deters crime nor does it offer swift and certain justice for victims' families.
Led by the ACLU-WA and the Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, the Safe and Just Alternatives Campaign seeks to replace the death penalty with a sentence of lifetime incarceration without the possibility of parole. On January 25th the campaign mobilized supporters for a Lobby Day in Olympia to tell legislators that lifetime behind bars is a sensible and cost-effective alternative to the death penalty. For a list of endorsers and more information about the campaign, see www.sjawa.org.
Maintaining the death penalty is particularly untenable given Washington's current fiscal crisis. Capital cases are far more expensive than cases seeking life imprisonment without possibility of parole. 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.
Rather than spending money on the death penalty, our state could use those resources towards proven strategies for fighting crime and making the criminal justice system more responsive to the needs of crime victims and communities.
PROACTIVE RESPONSES TO GANGS
HB 2594
Position: Opposed
Status: Did not advance to a vote on the House floor.
The problems posed by gangs are serious, and we need smart, carefully crafted solutions. The ACLU supports proactive measures that keep at-risk young people out of gangs, not injunctions and other measures that criminalize youth, fail to respect due process rights, and do not make communities safer. Studies show that what works against gangs is to arrest and charge kingpins – gang leaders who are committing violent acts – and to provide vulnerable young people with services and opportunities that keep them away from gangs.
The ACLU opposes legislation that provides for civil injunctions against suspected gang members. This approach cuts off young people from critical resources—such as family members, jobs, sports, and school—needed to stay out of gang life. Further, the legislation lacks adequate due process protections. Only a few individuals are selected to represent a gang in the injunction process and only those individuals are represented by free lawyers. However, the injunction can be applied to many more individuals alleged to be affiliated with gangs. The majority of the individuals affected by an injunction will not even be notified about a potential injunction until after it is issued by a court. This is bogus "due process by committee" that will sweep in people who need help to stay out of gangs, not time in jail.
Once an injunction has been issued, a person may be banned from an area and may be charged with a crime simply for returning there, even if he has never committed any other crime. If they are arrested and charged with violating the injunction, they may be sent to prison where they will live with and learn from real criminals. In short, we will be using our precious public safety resources to send vulnerable individuals to “gang school.”
More than 50 civil rights, social justice, and minority community organizations around the state have affirmed their opposition to the injunction bill. Despite changes made in committee, this bill cannot be fixed - injunctions just don't work. Instead, our public safety dollars should be directed to proven prevention and intervention and prevention approaches.
OTHER ISSUES
The ACLU-WA will be weighing in on many other issues that impact civil liberties. On the proactive side, we will be supporting bills promoting abortion funding, sealing criminal and juvenile records, and criminal law reform around driving with license suspended in the third degree. On the defensive side, we will seek to block bills requiring DNA to be taken from those arrested but not convicted, barring driver’s licenses for undocumented individuals, and establishing suspicionless checkpoints for motorists.
Collection of DNA upon Arrest
Bill: HB 2588
Position: Opposed
Status: The bill did not advance to a vote in House.
Proposed legislation would expand mandatory DNA collection and permanent storage to include people who are merely arrested. In America, our Constitution guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many people who are arrested are never charged, let alone convicted. DNA is a person's most private information. Individuals who are arrested should not have to give up their DNA to the government.
DNA contains a person's most private medical information. It reveals intimate details about a person that go well beyond mere identification--this is not just another way to do fingerprints. Government collection of DNA should be very strictly limited.
Expanding the collection of DNA would be a costly and ineffective approach to solving crimes. Collecting DNA from the innocent will do nothing to make us safer. But it would tempt the government to use people's DNA for ever-expanding purposes.
Groups Urge Legislators to Reject DNA Collection on Arrest
Restricting E-Verify
HB 2568
Position: Support
Status: The bill did not advance to a vote in House.
This bill prohibits the state and local governments from enacting ordinances or other legislation to mandate use of the problematic E-Verify system. E-Verify uses several federal government databases to check on the eligibility of individuals to work in this country. It has been adopted by 11 cities and counties in Washington.
E-Verify is notoriously flawed, and its use around the country has resulted in many people being wrongly denied employment. Supporting the bill is a coalition of One America and other immigrant rights, civil rights, labor, and religious groups, and farmers.
Restricting Public Records Requests
SB 6351
Position: Opposed
Status: Did not advance to a vote in the Senate.
The state’s public disclosure law is designed to promote open government and provides the citizenry an essential means of gaining information to hold officials accountable. This bill would amend state law to allow government officials to withhold records if they can convince a judge that handling the request to release documents would pose a “significant burden” – a vague term that would give officials a new hook for opposing public disclosure.
It is poor policy to haul people into court and force them to prove that the public good is greater than the burden on government. While public officials indeed can find some document requests burdensome, this proposal is like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.
