June, 04 2020, 12:00am EDT
New Report Condemns Age Discrimination in Voting at Home Across Seven States as Unconstitutional
Today, a coalition of democracy advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars released a comprehensive report titled "Age Discrimination In Voting At Home." It argues that laws in seven states--Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--that provide no-excuse vote-at-home options only to elderly voters violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
WASHINGTON
Today, a coalition of democracy advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars released a comprehensive report titled "Age Discrimination In Voting At Home." It argues that laws in seven states--Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--that provide no-excuse vote-at-home options only to elderly voters violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. It also questions the constitutionality of a bill likely to become law in Missouri that expands vote-at-home options in 2020 but explicitly makes it easier for those over 65 to utilize it. The authors call for immediate litigation to challenge these statutes.
The report is by a joint project of Equal Citizens, The Andrew Goodman Foundation, The UCLA Voting Rights Project, Stris & Maher, National Vote at Home Institute, and University of Kentucky law professor Joshua A. Douglas.
"The [Twenty Sixth] Amendment's history and Congress's intent show that courts will likely find these laws unconstitutional, particularly in light of new challenges presented amid the COVID-19 pandemic," the report's authors explain. "These laws use age to create two classes of voters--one with easier access to the ballot box than the other--and work to abridge the voting rights of younger voters. That practice is impermissible under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment."
This report contains novel data analysis to concretely demonstrate the harm caused by these discriminatory statutes. The authors, for example, find: "in states where voters under 65 cannot vote at home without an excuse, voters who are 65 and older comprise nearly 65% of all such ballots. But in states without these provisions, the use of at-home ballots is much more evenly distributed, as older voters make up only 39% of the votes from home in those states."
This report is made public just weeks after a federal court granted a preliminary injunction in Texas in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott on, in part, Twenty-Sixth Amendment grounds.
Statement from Jason Harrow, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of Equal Citizens and co-author of the report: "This report reveals that there will be substantial barriers to conducting a safe, secure election this year--especially for younger voters. But the Constitution does not permit states to pick and choose who can vote easily and who cannot. The 26th Amendment prevents any age discrimination at all in the process of voting. We're thrilled to partner with this great group to spread the word and far and wide that these laws are impactful and cannot stand."
"Fifty years ago, our nation came together across partisan lines to certify that young voices were vital to the health of our democracy by ratifying the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Despite that, many states today use various tactics to suppress the youth vote. This important report uncovers blatant age discrimination in absentee voting and its impact across age cohorts. I hope it is a wake-up call that helps us fulfill the promise of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and ensure that young voices and votes are a powerful force in democracy, in part by shedding light on how laws that may appear innocuous nonetheless unconstitutionally discriminate on account of age for the youth class and beyond," says Yael Bromberg, Esq., Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at The Andrew Goodman Foundation and Twenty-Sixth Amendment expert and co-author of this report.
Statement from Professor Joshua A. Douglas of the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law and co-author of this report: "The right to vote is the most fundamental, crucial right in our democracy. It cannot be denied or abridged--especially during a pandemic. This report explains an important development in that continued struggle as we seek to achieve a more perfect union."
Statement from Chad Dunn, co-founder and Director of Litigation of the UCLA Voting Rights Project: "Fortunately states all over the country, in a bipartisan way, are finding a way to hold democratic elections during these pandemic times. Those few states who insist on trying to pick and choose the voters they want will run right into the U.S Constitution. The 26th Amendment guarantees the right to vote be administered equally without regard to age and it remains in effect even during a national health emergency."
Statement from Matt Barreto, co-founder and Faculty Director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project: "When the 26th amendment extended the right to vote to 18 year-olds in 1971 it clearly stated that states could not discriminate against voters by age. Absentee voting systems that advantage 65 and older citizens, but require people under age 65 to jump through extra hoops are a violation of the 26th amendment. This research is important in advancing legal theories and empirical evidence that the 26th amendment can, and should be used to uphold the voting rights of all American regardless of age."
Statement from Michael Donofrio of Stris & Maher and co-author of this report: "Stris & Maher is proud to partner with this outstanding coalition of election law advocates and scholars, political scientists, and nonpartisan election security experts to help make sure every citizen can safely and freely exercise their fundamental right to vote".
Statement from Amber McReynolds, CEO, National Vote at Home Institute and Coalition: "A strong democracy depends on our collective right to vote. That right cannot be denied on the basis of age. This report is crucial in advancing and highlighting the urgent need for some states to modify their voting laws to meet the clear intent set forth by the 26th amendment and ensure every eligible voter can vote in a safe, secure, and accessible way."
LATEST NEWS
West Virginia, Kentucky Republicans Latest to Ban Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth
"While we lost the battle in the legislature, our defeat is temporary. We will not lose in court," said one Kentucky activist. "And we are winning in so many other ways."
Mar 30, 2023
West Virginia and Kentucky on Wednesday joined the growing list of U.S. states where Republicans have banned gender-affirming healthcare for minors, denying them access to evidence-based treatments that advocates say have saved the lives of countless transgender youth.
Republican West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice signed legislation outlawing the prescription of hormone therapy and fully reversible puberty blockers to anyone under age 18. Minors are also now prohibited from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries, even though doctors say no such operations are performed in the state. The law contains an exception for minors who are deemed at risk of suicide or other self-harm, diagnosed with severe gender dysphoria by two doctors, and have parental consent.
According to UCLA's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy, West Virginia is the state with the highest per capita number of transgender youth in the country, by far.
"We are denying families, their physicians, and their therapists the right to make medically informed decisions for their families."
Following the lead of Tennessee—which recently banned public drag shows—Republican state lawmakers in West Virginia have also recently introduced a pair of bills ostensibly aimed at "protecting minors from exposure to indecent displays," in part by defining "obscene matter" as "included but not limited to transvestite and/or transgender exposure in performances or displays to minors."
One of the bills punishes violators with a year in prison; the other imposes a six-month sentence.
\u201cToday, Gov. Justice signed HB 2007, a bill that bans gender-affirming care in West Virginia, including medications, to anyone <18 in most circumstances.\n\nWe want all transgender and queer youth in WV to know that we see you & you are deserving of respect and autonomy. (1/2)\u201d— PP South Atlantic WV (@PP South Atlantic WV) 1680129542
Meanwhile, Republican state lawmakers used their supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature to override Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear's veto of legislation described by Louisville Courier Journal reporter Olivia Krauth as "one of the nation's most extreme anti-trans bills."
Hundreds of LGBTQ+ youths and their allies rallied outside the Kentucky state Capitol, and 19 activists were arrested inside the building and charged with criminal trespassing after refusing orders to leave, the Courier Journal reported.
\u201cThey\u2019re locking arms and forcing state police to separate them and take them out of the gallery.\u201d— Joe Gerth (@Joe Gerth) 1680115934
Hazel Hardesty, a transgender teen who spoke at the rally, said that without gender-affirming care, "my male puberty would continue" and "cause a lot of mental distress."
"People don't even understand how it feels," the 16-year-old said. "Going through the wrong puberty, every day your body is a little bit farther from what feels like you. And eventually, you don't even recognize yourself in the mirror."
Another trans teen, June Wagner, told the crowd that "my own government is working against me."
\u201cA crowd of protestors gathering in Frankfort opposed to SB 150 and other bills they say are anti-LGBTQ.\u201d— Mark Vanderhoff (@Mark Vanderhoff) 1680096558
As Krauth noted, the Kentucky bill:
- Bans all gender-affirming medical care for trans youths;
- Requires doctors to de-transition minors in their care if they're using any of the restricted treatment options;
- Prohibits conversations around sexual orientation or gender identity in school for students of all grades;
- Requires school districts to forbid trans students from using the bathroom tied to their gender identities;
- Allows teachers to refuse to use the pronouns a student identifies with.
"We are denying families, their physicians, and their therapists the right to make medically informed decisions for their families," Kentucky state Sen. Karen Berg (D-26) said on the chamber's floor prior to the vote.
"To say this is a bill protecting children is completely disingenuous, and to call this a 'parents' rights' bill is an absolutely despicable affront to me, personally," Berg added, recounting how her transgender son killed himself in December. She also linked anti-trans legislation to violent attacks on transgender people.
\u201cSpeaking to supporters of Senate Bill 150, which was enacted over @GovAndyBeshear's veto, state Rep. @lgwillner said, "I hope, if you're pleading for the lives of your children, that you won't find yourselves up against a 'we know better legislature.'"\u201d— KY House Democrats (@KY House Democrats) 1680125858
The ACLU of Kentucky's new executive director, Amber Duke, called the veto override "another shameful attack on LGBTQ youth."
"Trans Kentuckians, medical and mental health professionals, and accredited professional associations pleaded with lawmakers to listen to the experts, not harmful rhetoric based in fear and hate," Duke continued. "Their pleas fell on deaf ears."
"To all the trans youth who may be affected by this legislation: We stand by you, and we will not stop fighting. You are cherished. You are loved. You belong," she added. "To the commonwealth: We will see you in court."
\u201cAs Sen. Karen Berg shared in floor testimony, SB150 is \u201cabsolute willful, intentional hate for a small group of people" - @karenforky\u201d— Human Rights Campaign (@Human Rights Campaign) 1680120621
Trans youth can still obtain gender-affirming care in Kentucky, as the law won't take effect for 90 days.
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics are among the many medical groups supporting gender-affirming care for minors. A study published last year by the University of Washington found that youth who received such healthcare were 73% less likely to experience suicidality and 60% less likely to suffer from depression than minors who did not get care.
Yet GOP-led state legislatures in 2023 have already introduced more than 100 bills aimed at banning or severely limiting gender-affirming healthcare for minors, according to the ACLU.
As The Associated Press notes:
At least 11 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Federal judges have blocked enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and nearly two dozen states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care.
Earlier this month, the Idaho House of Representatives passed a bill that would make providing gender-affirming care to transgender youths a felony, punishable by life imprisonment. The legislation also contains a provision making it a crime for parents or guardians to allow their children to travel out of the state for treatment.
\u201cCurrent state of bills and policies banning gender affirming care. 34 states have introduced over 124 bills banning gender affirming care. \n\n11 states have enacted outright bans\n3 states have injunctions on bans/policies\n2 states have enacted restrictions\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1679609374
According to the Williams Institute, more than 144,000 U.S. transgender youth lost or remain at risk of losing access to gender-affirming care due to bans.
Belying Republican claims that healthcare bans are for the protection of children, GOP-led states have also moved to ban or limit gender-affirming care for adults.
Speaking after the Kentucky veto override, Chris Hartman from the advocacy group Fairness Campaign said in a statement that "while we lost the battle in the legislature, our defeat is temporary."
"We will not lose in court," Hartman added. "And we are winning in so many other ways."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic Moment': Applause as UN Adopts Climate Justice Resolution
"We have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions," said Vanuatu's prime minister after the passage of a resolution asking the world's highest court to clarify national obligations for climate action and the legal consequences of inaction.
Mar 30, 2023
Climate justice advocates cheered Wednesday after the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on climate change and human rights.
The newly approved measure, introduced by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by more than 130 governments, asks the world's highest court to outline countries' legal responsibilities for combatting the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and the legal consequences of failing to meet those obligations.
"We have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions," Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau said after the resolution was adopted by consensus. "Today's historic resolution is the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and intergenerational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making."
"This is a landmark moment in the fight for climate justice as it is likely to provide clarity on how existing international law... can be applied to strengthen action on climate change."
Like other Pacific Island nations, Vanuatu bears little responsibility for the climate crisis but is acutely vulnerable to its impacts, including existentially threatening sea level rise and intensified cyclones such as those that displaced thousands in the region just weeks ago. The country began pushing for the ICJ resolution in 2021, following a campaign launched in 2019 by a group of students from a university in nearby Fiji.
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) hailed its passage as "a historic moment."
\u201c\u201cIt is so decided\u201d \n\nThe @UN General Assembly just unanimously adopted the resolution for an advisory opinion on #HumanRights and #ClimateChange from the @CIJ_ICJ \u2696\ufe0f.\n\n\ud83c\udf89 This is a historic moment and a win for climate frontlines communities across the world.\u201d— Center for International Environmental Law (@Center for International Environmental Law) 1680100615
So too did Marta Schaaf, director of Amnesty International's Climate, Economic, and Social Justice program.
"This is a landmark moment in the fight for climate justice as it is likely to provide clarity on how existing international law, especially human rights and environmental legislation, can be applied to strengthen action on climate change," said Schaaf. "This will help mitigate the causes and consequences of the damage done to the climate and ultimately protect people and the environment globally."
“We salute this remarkable achievement by Vanuatu, and other Pacific Island states, which originally brought this urgent call to advance climate justice to the U.N.," Schaaf continued. "Today's victory sprang from the efforts of youth activists in Pacific Island states to secure climate justice."
Schaaf urged the ICJ "to provide a robust advisory opinion to advance climate justice." Last week's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, she noted, shows that "the 1.5°C global warming limit agreed to in Paris in 2015 is likely to be breached before 2035 unless urgent action is taken." Temperature rise of roughly 1.1°C to date is already fueling catastrophic weather, with even more lethal impacts on the horizon barring transformative action.
"We see some fossil fuel-producing states both resisting calls to phase them out, and falsely promoting carbon capture and storage as a technological fix for the climate," said Schaaf. "An advisory opinion from the court can help put a brake on this accelerating climate disaster."
CIEL's Climate and Energy program director Nikki Reisch also applauded the resolution, saying it marks an important step "toward clarifying what existing law requires states to do to curb climate change and protect human rights."
"Courts can translate the clear scientific evidence that fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis into clear legal imperatives to phase them out now and implement proven available solutions."
Despite volumes of indisputable scientific evidence highlighting the need quickly replace fossil fuels—the leading source of greenhouse gas pollution—with renewables, last year's COP27 negotiations ended, like the 26 preceding U.N. climate summits, with no concrete commitment to wind down coal, oil, and gas production.
In the absence of a needed crackdown on the fossil fuel industry, immensely profitable oil and gas giants are planning to expand their operations in the coming years even though their executives know it means locking in additional planet-heating emissions and cataclysmic temperature increases.
While a handful of Pacific Island governments are leading calls for a global just transition to clean energy, other governments are actively aiding the continued extraction and combustion of fossil fuels.
Earlier this month, for instance, the Biden administration, which claims to view the climate crisis as an existential threat, approved ConocoPhillips' Willow project in the Alaskan Arctic—the largest proposed oil drilling endeavor on public land in U.S. history—and moved ahead with Lease Sale 259, one of the largest-ever offshore drilling auctions in the Gulf of Mexico.
As CIEL pointed out, "impacted communities across the globe are finding themselves with few alternatives but to resort to courts in their pursuit of clear rules to guide state climate action and hold states accountable for their failures."
According toThe New York Times:
The [ICJ's] opinion would not be binding. But, depending on what it says, it could potentially turn the voluntary pledges that every country has made under the Paris climate accord into legal obligations under a range of existing international statutes, such as those on the rights of children or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That could, in turn, lay the groundwork for new legal claims. (A few national courts have already relied in part on international law to rule in favor of climate activists' lawsuits.)
Courts play a critical role "in breaking through the inertia when politics break down," said Reisch. "Courts can translate the clear scientific evidence that fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis into clear legal imperatives to phase them out now and implement proven available solutions. They also can—and indeed must—hold states accountable for the mounting suffering caused by their failure to act."
Describing climate justice as "both a moral imperative and a prerequisite for effective global climate action," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called the ICJ resolution "essential."
Advisory opinions issued by the world's top court "have tremendous importance and can have a long-standing impact on the international legal order," he added. Such a move "would assist the General Assembly, the U.N., and member states to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs."
The passage of the ICJ resolution comes just days after a pair of scholars put forth a novel legal theory of "climate homicide," which aims to hold fossil fuel corporations criminally liable for disaster deaths.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Fiery Shadow of New Train Disaster, Fetterman Leads Railway Accountability Act
"This bill will implement commonsense safety reforms, hold the big railway companies accountable, protect the workers who make these trains run, and help prevent future catastrophes," said the Pennsylvania Democrat.
Mar 30, 2023
As a train derailment and fire forced evacuations in Minnesota on Thursday, a trio of Democratic U.S. senators introduced another piece of legislation inspired by the ongoing public health and environmental disaster in and around East Palestine, Ohio.
The Railway Accountability Act—led by Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)—would build on the bipartisan Railway Safety Act introduced at the beginning of March by Brown and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) after a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials including vinyl chloride derailed in the small Ohio community on February 3.
While welcoming "greater federal oversight and a crackdown on railroads that seem all too willing to trade safety for higher profits," Eddie Hall, national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), also warned just after the earlier bill was unveiled that "you can run a freight train through the loopholes."
The new bill is backed by unions including the Transport Workers of America (TWU), the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers (NCFO), and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Mechanical Division (SMART-MD).
"Communities like Darlington Township and East Palestine are too often forgotten and overlooked by leaders in Washington and executives at big companies like Norfolk Southern who only care about making their millions."
"It is an honor and a privilege to introduce my first piece of legislation, the Railway Accountability Act, following the derailment affecting East Palestine, Ohio, and Darlington Township, Pennsylvania," Fetterman said in a statement. "This bill will implement commonsense safety reforms, hold the big railway companies accountable, protect the workers who make these trains run, and help prevent future catastrophes that endanger communities near railway infrastructure."
Fetterman, who is expected to return to the Senate in mid-April after checking himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center last month to be treated for clinical depression, asserted that "working Pennsylvanians have more than enough to think about already—they should never have been put in this horrible situation."
"Communities like Darlington Township and East Palestine are too often forgotten and overlooked by leaders in Washington and executives at big companies like Norfolk Southern who only care about making their millions," he added. "That's why I'm proud to be working with my colleagues to stand up for these communities and make clear that we're doing everything we can to prevent a disaster like this from happening again."
As Fetterman's office summarized, the Railway Accountability Act would:
- Direct the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to examine the causes of and potential mitigation strategies for wheel-related derailments and mechanical defects, and publish potential regulations that would improve avoidance of these defects;
- Ensure that employees can safely inspect trains by prohibiting trains from being moved during brake inspections;
- Require that the mechanic that actually inspects a locomotive or rail car attests to its safety;
- Direct the FRA to review regulations relating to the operation of trains in switchyards, and direct railroads to update their plans submitted under the FRA's existing Risk Reduction Program (RRP) to incorporate considerations regarding switchyard practices;
- Require the FRA to make Class 1 railroad safety waivers public in one online location;
- Require railroads to ensure that communication checks between the front and end of a train do not fail, and that emergency brake signals reach the end of a train;
- Ensure Class 1 railroad participation in the confidential Close Call Reporting System by requiring all railroads that have paid the maximum civil penalty for a safety violation to join; and
- Ensure that railroads provide warning equipment (such as white disks, red flags, or whistles) to railroad watchmen and lookouts.
A preliminary report released in late February by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) suggests an overheated wheel bearing may have caused the disastrous derailment in Ohio. The initial findings added fuel to demands that federal lawmakers enact new rules for the rail industry.
"Rail lobbyists have fought for years to protect their profits at the expense of communities like East Palestine," Brown noted Thursday.
Casey stressed that "along with the Railway Safety Act, this bill will make freight rail safer and protect communities from preventable tragedies."
In addition to pushing those two bills, Brown, Casey, and Fetterman have responded to the East Palestine disaster by introducing the Assistance for Local Heroes During Train Crises Act and—along with other colleagues—writing to Norfolk Southern president and CEO Alan Shaw, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy, and U.S. Environmental Protection Administrator Michael Regan with various concerns and demands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.