June, 07 2010, 10:11am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Debbie Seagraves, ACLU of Georgia, (770) 303-8111; info@acluga.org
Araceli Martínez-Olguín, LAS-ELC, (415) 864-8848; amartinez-olguin@las-elc.org
Defendants With Limited English Proficiency Have a Constitutional Right to Court Interpreters, Says ACLU
ACLU Filed Friend-o-the-Court Brief With Georgia Supreme Court
ATLANTA
The Supreme Court of Georgia heard oral
arguments today regarding the constitutional rights of criminal
defendants with limited English proficiency (LEP) to court interpreters.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Georgia and Legal Aid
Society - Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC) filed a friend-of-the-court
brief in the case charging that denying LEP individuals interpreters
during criminal trials violates the U.S. Constitution.
"We don't have two systems of justice
in this country - one for English-speakers and another for everyone
else," said Azadeh Shahshahani, Director of the National
Security/Immigrants' Rights Project at the ACLU of Georgia. "The
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply to
everyone in this country, not just to fluent English speakers."
The ACLU's and LAS-ELC's brief was
submitted on behalf of Annie Ling, a Mandarin-speaker who was sentenced
to 10 years in prison and five years probation after a trial without an
interpreter to assist her. Because of her limited English, Ling did not
understand that she had the option to plead guilty rather than going to
trial and face a much longer sentence, and at the trial, she could not
understand the testimony for or against her. Her own trial attorney
admitted that because of her limited English skills, he could not
properly communicate with her without an interpreter. However, he
decided not to ask the court for an interpreter because he felt it would
make the trial "take a lot longer" and make the jury "impatient."
"Georgia's justice system failed Ms.
Ling from the beginning to the end," said Araceli Martinez-Olguin, an
attorney with LAS-ELC. "Georgia had an obligation to provide her with an
interpreter in order to guarantee her civil rights as well as her
rights to a fair trial and competent legal counsel."
The ACLU's and LAS-ELC's brief argues
that denying LEP individuals interpreters during criminal trials
violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Sixth Amendment rights
of criminal defendants to confront witnesses, be present at their own
trial and receive effective assistance of counsel. In addition, the
brief argues, Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires
the state of Georgia to provide competent interpretation services to all
LEP individuals who come into contact with its court system.
"Our Constitution promises all
criminal defendants a fair trial," said Jennifer Chang Newell, a staff
attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "But the
Constitution's promise is meaningless when a defendant's right to
liberty is determined at a trial that is incomprehensible to her."
Attorneys on the case, Ling v. Georgia, are Newell and David Wakukawa (a
volunteer attorney) of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Azadeh
Shahshahani and Chara Fisher Jackson of the ACLU of Georgia and
Martinez-Olguin of the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center.
The legal brief can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/ling-v-state-georgia-amicus-brief
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
After $16 Billion Election, Nonprofit Tracking Money in Politics Lays Off 1/3 of Staff
"This is an absolutely devastating development on the precipice of the next administration," said one journalist.
Nov 08, 2024
Journalists and other critics of how money influences U.S. politics expressed alarm and disappointment in response to Friday reporting that shortly after the nation's latest election, the research nonprofit OpenSecrets had to lay off a third of its staff.
Citing a current staffer, Politico's Daniel Lippman revealed that OpenSecrets "laid off 10 employees yesterday due to financial difficulties" and "much of the research team were among the casualties, which constituted around a third of the group's total headcount."
According to the Politico Playbook newsletter:
Executive director Hilary Braseth wrote in an email to supporters that "OpenSecrets remains committed to its mission—serving as the trusted authority on money in American politics—but our task has become more difficult as groups have opted to fund a partisan outcome rather than nonpartisan democratic infrastructure."
She said in a subsequent email to Playbook that the layoffs were "a necessary first step to make our organization sustainable," and that she had "no doubt that our team will continue to produce the high-quality data that the public has come to rely on."
With a mission "to serve as the trusted authority on money in American politics," OpenSecrets envisions a country in which citizens "use data on money in politics to create a more vibrant, representative, and responsive democracy."
In response to the layoffs, numerous reporters took to social media on Friday to share how they—like Common Dreams—have used what National Public Radio media correspondent David Folkenflik calledthat "an invaluable resource for many a journalist and researcher—utterly nonpartisan but a source for transparency about money in politics now under financial threat."
"Terrible news!" declaredNerdWallet data journalist Joe Yerardi. "The folks at OpenSecrets have helped me so many times on stories. The [organization] does such vital work."
Other reactions included:
- Wall Street Journal reporter Maggie Severns: "OpenSecrets is an important resource on money in politics, this is terrible to see."
- Politico deputy national editor Zach Montellaro: "This stinks—OpenSecrets is a great resource for campaign finance data and following the money."
- Digiday senior reporter Marty Swant: "Sad news for a critical team that helps shed light on dark money in politics."
- McClatchy and Miami Herald investigative reporter Ben Wieder: "This is such sad news. OpenSecrets is such an important resource for journalists and anyone who cares about money in politics."
- The New Republic breaking news writer Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: "This is an absolutely devastating development on the precipice of the next administration."
Republican President-elect Donald Trump—known for "outright scandals and blatant corruption" during his first term—defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris on Election Day earlier this week, . The GOP also seized control of the U.S. Senate and is on track to win a majority in the House of Representatives.
In a Tuesday analysis, OpenSecrets' Albert Serna Jr. and Anna Massoglia detailed how about $16 billion "went to influence federal elections and another $4.6 billion was raised by state candidates, party committees, and ballot measure committees for 2023 and 2024 elections."
The pair also highlighted Tuesday that this cycle "has broken the record for outside spending," with about $4.5 billion from independent groups such as super political action committees; dark money accounted for over $1 billion in total contributions to organizations like super PACs; top donors had outsize influence; and donations to support or defeat various ballot measures have also set "several records."
Jimmy Cloutier, a former OpenSecrets reporting fellow now at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said Friday in response to the layoffs that "I'm devastated for my former colleagues—and shocked that this news comes just days after the most expensive election in U.S. history."
Investigative journalist Dave Levinthal, who also previously worked for the organization, said that "this is heartbreaking news, not just for us OpenSecrets alums, but anyone who cares about genuinely nonpartisan research and reporting plus political/governmental transparency."
Healthcare Across Borders executive director Jodi Jacobson said Friday that "this is unacceptable and unconscionable and shows how perverse our funding streams are. We can sink over a billion into a political campaign but not fund one of the most critical tools of accountability at a time when we need it most?"
Some responded to the layoff news with calls for donations to OpenSecrets. Filmmaker Adam McKay declared: "Legacy news media has all but blacked out money's outsized control of [government] so this is one of the few places to find out who is bribing your candidate or [representative]. Donate if you can ASAP."
Issue One research director Michael Beckels said: "Care about being able to follow the money in politics? Today would be a good day to donate—or become a monthly donor—OpenSecretsDC, one of the best groups around for understanding the flow of money in state and federal elections."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Horrific Reality': Nearly 70% of UN-Verified Gaza Deaths Are Women and Children
The United Nations human rights office noted the "unprecedented levels of killings, death, injury, starvation, illness, disease, displacement, detention, and destruction" wrought by Israel's 13-month onslaught.
Nov 08, 2024
Nearly 7 in 10 people killed by Israeli forces in Gaza during an earlier six-month period of the ongoing assault on the Palestinian enclave were women and children, the United Nations human rights office said Friday.
The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) verified 8,119 of the more than 34,500 Palestinians killed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bombs and bullets between November 2023 and April 2024. Among those killed were 3,588 children and 2,036 women ranging in age from newborns to nonagenarians. Minors under the age of 18 made up 44% of the victims in the analysis.
The OHCHR report noted the "unprecedented levels of killings, death, injury, starvation, illness, disease, displacement, detention, and destruction" wrought by Israel's onslaught, as well as the "wanton disregard" by Israeli forces and Hamas of international humanitarian law.
The analysis also highlights "the Israeli government's continuing unlawful failures to allow, facilitate, and ensure the entry of humanitarian aid, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and repeated mass displacement."
"If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population... these violations may constitute crimes against humanity," OHCHR said. "And if committed with intent to destroy—in whole or in part—a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, they may also constitute genocide."
South Africa is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. On Thursday, Ireland became the latest of around 30 countries and regional blocs to announce its intent to intervene in the case on behalf of Palestine.
OHCHR found that 88% of the verified Palestinian fatalities from Israeli attacks on residential buildings were people killed in strikes that claimed at least five lives. In recent weeks, Israel's renewed offensive in northern Gaza—which some experts believe is an attempt to ethnically cleanse the area by bombing and starving its people before forcibly expelling them to make way for Israeli recolonization—has wiped out a staggering number of civilians, including many women and children, in single strikes on homes, hospitals, and refugee camps.
"The high number of fatalities per attack was due to the IDF's use of weapons with wide area effects in densely populated areas," the analysis states, adding that some Palestinians may have been killed by errant projectiles launched by Hamas or other Gaza-based militants.
The new report also raises concerns over Isrsel's forcible transfer of Palestinians, systematic attacks on medical workers, journalists, and reported use of white phosphorus munitions—which are banned in populated areas.
Israel has not yet responded to the OHCHR report but has previously said that it "will continue to act, as it always has done, according to international law."
Since October 7, 2023, when Israeli forces launched their assault on the densely populated coastal enclave of 2.3 million people in response to the Hamas-led attack on Israel, the Gaza Ministry of Health and U.N. agencies say that more than 43,600 Palestinians have been killed and over 102,500 others wounded. More than 10,000 others are missing and believed dead and buried beneath the ruins of bombed homes and other structures.
Among those killed, say officials, are more than 18,000 children. Last month, the U.K.-based charity Oxfam International said that Israel's yearlong assault on Gaza has been the deadliest year of conflict for women and children anywhere in the world over the past two decades.
The relentless death and destruction has caused the "complete psychological destruction" of Gaza's youth, according to the charity Save the Children. The same has been said of many Gazans of all ages.
Last December, the U.N. Children's Fund called Gaza "the world's most dangerous place to be a child." Earlier this year, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time added Israel to his so-called "List of Shame" of countries that kill and injure children during wars and other armed conflicts.
The ICJ—which is a U.N. body—has issued three provisionsal orders in the ongoing genocide case, including directives for Israel to prevent genocidal acts, stop its assault on Rafah, and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel has been accused of flouting all three orders.
"The trends and patterns of violations, and of applicable international law as clarified by the International Court of Justice, must inform the steps to be taken to end the current crisis," U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said in a statement Friday.
"The violence must stop immediately, the hostages and those arbitrarily detained must be released, and we must focus on flooding Gaza with humanitarian aid," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Says Senate Must Use 'Every Minute' Until January 3 to Confirm Federal Judges
"While still in charge of the Senate and the White House, we must do all we can to safeguard our democracy," said the senator.
Nov 08, 2024
In an op-ed on "the plan to fight back" against the incoming Trump administration, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday provided a pep talk to anguished supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris as the nation faces another four years with the far-right MAGA movement at the helm of the government—but she also issued a demand of the Senate before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
"While still in charge of the Senate and the White House, we must do all we can to safeguard our democracy," wrote the Massachusetts Democrat at Time magazine. "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer must use every minute of the end-of-year legislative session to confirm federal judges and key regulators—none of whom can be removed by the next president."
As Law.comreported on Thursday, there are currently four federal appeals court nominees awaiting Senate floor votes, a nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit awaiting a Senate Judiciary Committee vote following a confirmation hearing in July, and 23 district court nominees awaiting floor or committee votes.
The lame-duck session of Congress will begin November 12 and lawmakers will leave for holiday recess December 20. On January 3, the 119th U.S. Congress will convene, with the Republican Party taking control of the upper chamber.
"Given the outcome of the election, the reality is that we now have a rapidly closing window to confirm well-qualified, fair-minded judges who will protect our rights and serve as one of the last guardrails in upholding our nation's laws and the Constitution," said Maggie Buchanan, managing director of Demand Justice. "Even one judge can make a difference. We don't have a minute to lose."
"With the prospect of more Trump judges on the horizon, this will hopefully create the urgency we've needed all along."
Law.com reported that Schumer (D-N.Y.) has filed for cloture on President Joe Biden's nominations of Judge Jonathan Hawley and former assistant U.S. Attorney April Perry, both of whom were nominated for federal trial courts in Illinois. The Senate will likely vote on the two nominees next week.
"We have always been adamant that the Senate must confirm all of President Biden's nominees and fill every possible vacancy, regardless of who wins the election," said Jake Faleschini, program director for Alliance for Justice, in a statement. "With the prospect of more Trump judges on the horizon, this will hopefully create the urgency we've needed all along."
A spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Law.com that Durbin "aims to confirm every possible nominee before the end of this Congress."
At Time, Warren wrote that the Harris campaign and the Biden White House have reached out to working people with pro-labor policies and proposals aimed at reducing prices and holding corporations accountable. But the senator acknowledged that "good economic policies do not erase painful underlying truths about our country."
"Americans do not want a country where political parties each field their own team of billionaires who then squabble over how to divvy up the spoils of government," wrote Warren. "Vice President Harris deserves credit for running an inspiring campaign under unprecedented circumstances. But if Democrats want to earn back the trust of working people and govern again, we need to convince voters we can—and will—unrig the economy."
Before Trump takes office, she added, "to resist Trump's threats to abuse state power against what he calls 'the enemy within,' Pentagon leaders should issue a directive now reiterating that the military's oath is to the Constitution."
Looking ahead to the second Trump administration, Warren advised her party to unite "against Trump's legislative agenda" as it did when the Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017.
"Democrats did not have the votes to stop the repeal," wrote the senator. "Nevertheless, we fought on. Patients kept up a relentless rotation of meetings in Congress, activists in wheelchairs performed civil disobedience, and lawmakers used every tactic possible—late night speeches, forums highlighting patient stories, committee reports, and procedural tactics—to draw attention to the Republican repeal effort. This sustained resistance ultimately shifted the politics of health care repeal. The final vote was a squeaker, but Republicans lost and the ACA survived."
"Trump won the election, but more than 67 million people voted for Democrats and they don't expect us to roll over and play dead," wrote Warren. "We will have a peaceful transition of power, followed by a vigorous challenge from the party out of power, because that's how democracy works."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular