September, 27 2021, 06:35pm EDT
Mi Familia Vota and Individual Voters Sue to Block New Voter Suppression Law in Texas
The complaint targets SB 1, one of the country’s most restrictive voting laws, for violating the Constitution’s First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
WASHINGTON
Non-profit civic engagement organization Mi Familia Vota, along with individual voters, filed suit today in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio seeking to block a new voter suppression law enacted by the Texas Legislature.
The lawsuit challenges Texas Senate Bill No. 1 (SB 1), a law designed to suppress votes from Texans of color and other marginalized communities through measures that include prohibiting drive-through voting, limiting voting hours, making it unlawful for counties to automatically mail eligible voters mail-in ballot applications; implementing stricter rules for voting by mail; allowing election officials to reject allegedly defective ballots without notice to the voter prior to the election; implementing monthly purges of voter rolls; limiting physical and language assistance at the polls; and enabling partisan poll watchers, which creates increased risk of voter intimidation.
The law was passed on the heels of the 2020 election, which saw enormous gains in the number of Black and Latino voters in Texas, in part driven by counties like Harris County, which took actions to make voting safe and accessible, including by offering drive-through and 24-hour voting options. "Texas's new voter suppression law, 2021 Texas Senate Bill No. 1, 87th Legislature ("SB 1"), is a calculated effort to disenfranchise voters," the complaint reads. "If allowed to stand, the bill will unconstitutionally burden qualified voters and inevitably prevent many voters from lawfully casting their ballots in future elections."
The plaintiffs argue that these changes to voting law in Texas create an undue burden on voters, especially those who are Black or Latino, in violation of the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They cite a pattern of voter suppression legislation in Texas throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, and they demonstrate as false Texas officials' claim that the law is targeting "voter fraud."
"Latinos and other voters of color came out to vote in big numbers in 2020," said Angelica Razo, Texas State Director for Mi Familia Vota. "We saw places like Harris County come up with ways of making voting widely available and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our state should empower voters to find safe and accessible voting options. Instead, our legislators chose to suppress voters, make it harder for us to vote, and subject us to voter intimidation. Voting is a constitutional, protected right, and we are proud to continue to advocate for the voting rights of our community, so that all eligible voters are able to exercise their right to vote."
Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives made national headlines in May when they walked out of the state capitol in response to the bill, denying Republicans the quorum needed for a vote. When the bill was reintroduced in a special session, most Democratic members of the House and a handful in the Texas Senate fled the state under threat of arrest to prevent a quorum once again. They made their way to Washington, D.C., where they met with Members of Congress to press for federal voting rights legislation. The state voter suppression bill eventually passed upon their return, during a second special session.
The defendants in this case are Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Texas Deputy Secretary of State Jose Esparza, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The plaintiffs are represented by Free Speech For People, a nonpartisan legal advocacy nonprofit dedicated to defending our democracy; the law firm of Stoel Rives; and the law firm of Lyons & Lyons. Free Speech For People filed a federal lawsuit last month in Phoenix, on behalf of Mi Familia Vota, Arizona Coalition for Change, Living United for Change in Arizona, and Chispa Arizona, to block two new Arizona laws restricting voting rights.
"SB 1 creates unconstitutional burdens on the right of Texans to vote, in an effort to block voters--and specifically voters of color--from voting and having their votes counted," said Courtney Hostetler, Senior Counsel for Free Speech For People. "It shuts down reasonable practices that counties have implemented to increase voters' access to the polls. It makes voters and election officials vulnerable to intimidation. And it will force certain voters to jump through costly and time-consuming hoops to remain on the voter rolls. The law violates the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
"Access to the ballot and exercise of the right to vote are the bedrock of our democracy," said Stoel Rives Partner Wendy Olson. "Through SB 1, Texas seeks to continue its long history of discriminating against Latino and Black voters, and tries to roll back the historic turnout in the 2020 election. It's imperative that Texas is held accountable and is forced to protect ballot access."
"Mi Familia Vota has been working for over two decades to increase Latino voter participation," said Sean Lyons, Partner at Lyons & Lyons. "SB 1 aims to push back the progress they and others have made for Latinos and other voters of color. We are proud to be a part of the legal team representing Mi Familia Vota and individual voters in this important case to protect the right to vote."
Read the full complaint here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
LATEST NEWS
'Barbaric': Whistleblowers Further Expose Israel's Torture of Detained Palestinians
"What we know about Gaza is only tip of atrocity iceberg."
May 10, 2024
Three Israeli whistleblowers who worked at the notorious Sde Teiman prison camp in the Negev desert offered horrifying accounts of the treatment of Palestinians held there, tellingCNN that the facility's doctors have amputated limbs due to handcuffing injuries, allowed detainees' wounds to rot, and carried out vicious beatings.
A medic who worked at Sde Teiman's field hospital said that Palestinian detainees there are stripped "of anything that resembles human beings" and that the harassment and torture are done not to "gather intelligence" but "out of revenge" for the October 7 attacks.
Israel has detained thousands of Gaza residents since October, with many of them held under a recently amended law that empowers Israeli authorities to imprison people indefinitely without charge or due process. Human rights organizations have documented Israeli forces' brutal and degrading treatment of Palestinian detainees, including women and children.
At the field hospital, CNN reported, "wounded detainees are strapped to their beds, wearing diapers and fed through straws."
One Israeli whistleblower took a photograph of a room at the facility, which the person said was filled with a "putrid stench" and the sound of "men's murmurs" as they were "forbidden from speaking to each other."
"We were told they were not allowed to move," the whistleblower said. "They should sit upright. They're not allowed to talk. Not allowed to peek under their blindfold."
CNN finally sheds light on Israel's shocking and barbaric torture chambers: thousands of people, detained for months:
Strapped down, blindfolded, held in diapers: Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention centerhttps://t.co/XuOL4IaFQS
— Nimer Sultany (@NimerSultany) May 10, 2024
The whistleblower accounts, according to CNN, "paint a picture of a facility where doctors sometimes amputated prisoners' limbs due to injuries sustained from constant handcuffing; of medical procedures sometimes performed by underqualified medics earning it a reputation for being 'a paradise for interns'; and where the air is filled with the smell of neglected wounds left to rot."
The testimony provided to CNN is consistent with details that a doctor at the camp's field hospital included in a recent letter to top Israeli officials. The doctor described unlawful and inhumane conditions; in a single week, the person said, "two prisoners had their legs amputated due to handcuff injuries, which unfortunately is a routine event."
A report published last month by Al Mezan, a Palestinian human rights organization, also documented "harrowing accounts of torture and inhumane treatment" of people detained by the Israeli military.
"A 19-year-old detainee told an Al Mezan lawyer that he was tortured from the moment he was arrested," the group said. "He described how three of his fingernails were removed with pliers during interrogation. He also stated that investigators unleashed a dog on him and subjected him to shabeh—a form of torture which involves detainees being handcuffed and bound in stress positions for long periods—three times over three days of interrogation. He was then placed in a cell for 70 days, where he experienced starvation and extreme fatigue."
Mohammed Al-Ran, a Palestinian doctor who was arrested by Israeli forces in December, told CNN that he was "stripped down to his underwear, blindfolded and his wrists tied, then dumped in the back of a truck where... the near-naked detainees were piled on top of one another as they were shuttled to a detention camp in the middle of the desert."
Al-Ran was held by Israeli forces for 44 days. Just before his release, he told CNN, "a fellow prisoner had called out to him, his voice barely rising above a whisper."
According to CNN: "He asked the doctor to find his wife and kids in Gaza. 'He asked me to tell them that it is better for them to be martyrs,' said al-Ran. 'It is better for them to die than to be captured and held here.'"
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director of Human Rights Watch, said in response to the new reporting that "what we know about Gaza is only tip of the atrocity iceberg."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil
"Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable," said the state attorney general
May 09, 2024
Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.
"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."
Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.
"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."
"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."
The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."
According to the newspaper:
Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.
"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.
"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."
The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."
The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Compare Biden's Proposed Asylum Rule to 'Failed Trump-Era Policies'
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," said one migrant rights advocate.
May 09, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates on Thursday slammed the Biden administration's proposal to fast-track the rejection of certain migrants seeking asylum in the United States.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would empower immigration officials to disqualify certain asylum-seekers during their initial eligibility screening—called the credible fear interview (CFI)—using existing national security and terrorism-related criteria, or bars.
DHS said the rule would apply to noncitizens who have "engaged in certain criminal activity, persecuted others, or have been involved in terrorist activities."
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the proposed rule "yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here."
However, Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that while "bars are an important feature of our immigration laws to ensure that dangerous individuals are not allowed into the country," they must be "accurately applied where warranted."
"This change could make the process faster by excluding people who would not be entitled to stay," he noted. "However, due process will likely be eroded by accelerating what is a highly complex legal analysis needed for these bars and conducting them at the preliminary CFI screening."
As Chen explained:
At that early stage, few asylum seekers will have the opportunity to seek legal counsel or time to understand the consequences of a bar being applied. Under the current process, they have more time to seek legal advice, to prepare their case, and to appeal it or seek an exemption. Ultimately to establish a fair and orderly process at the border, Congress needs to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the resources to meet its mission and also ensure the truly vulnerable are not summarily denied protection without due process.
Democratic lawmakers—some of whom held a press conference Wednesday on protecting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—also criticized the proposal.
"As the Biden administration considers executive actions on immigration, we must not return to failed Trump-era policies aimed at banning asylum and moving us backwards," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), referring to former Republican President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee to face President Joe Biden in November.
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation," he added.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public safety.
Earlier this week, the advocacy group Human Rights First released a report detailing the harms of the policy on its anniversary. The group held a press conference to unveil the report and warn of the dangers of further anti-migrant policies.
"The interviews with hundreds of asylum-seekers make clear that the asylum ban and related restrictions strands in danger children and adults seeking asylum, punishes people for seeking protection, leads to the return of refugees to persecution, spurs irregular crossings, and denies equal access to asylum to people facing the most dire risks," Human Rights First director of research and analysis of refugee protection Christina Asencio said during the press conference.
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," Asencio added.
On Wednesday, three advocacy groups—Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—sued the federal government on behalf of noncitizens with disabilities seeking more information regarding CBP One, the problem-plagued Customs and Border Protection app migrants must use to schedule asylum interviews at U.S. ports of entry.
"We have and continue to see migrants with disabilities facing unlawful discrimination and unequal access to the asylum process due to the inaccessibility of the app," said Laura Murchie, an attorney with the Civil Rights and Education Enforcement Center involved in the case.
"CBP needs to release these documents so we can advocate for and ensure compliance with the law so asylum-seekers with disabilities do not continue to be harmed by CBP's disregard for rights that are guaranteed by federal disability law," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular