Civil Rights

For Immediate Release: February 6, 2009 Contact: Tony Newman at 646-335-5384 or Bill Piper at 202-669-6430 Congress Includes Billions in Stimulus Package for Controversial Byrne Grant Program Linked to Racial Disparities, Police Corruption and Civil Rights Abuses More Byrne Grant Money Means More Arrests and Incarceration for Marijuana and other Low-level Drug offenses Funding of Program without Reform a Slap in the Face to Victims of Tulia and Hearne Scandals Last week the U.S. House approved a stimulus package including $3 billion for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program, a controversial law enforcement grant program linked to racial disparities, police corruption and civil rights abuses. The Senate is currently considering the package. Critics say increased funding for the Byrne Grant program is going to backfire by increasing costs on one of the least productive sectors of the U.S. economy: the prison industrial complex. "The last thing we need in a stimulus plan is an incentive for more arrests, more jail time and more prisons," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug policy Alliance. "If Congress wants to give away billions to local law enforcement, it needs to make clear that the objective is public safety, not catching more young people for possessing a joint." Law enforcement agencies, especially narcotics taskforces, are often evaluated and funded based on how many people they arrest. Since low-level drug offenders are plentiful and easy to catch, it's easy for police to pad their numbers by arresting them, even as violent criminals roam free. The more nonviolent drug offenders the police arrest, the more federal money they receive. The number of Americans behind bars grows, and taxpayers are left footing the bill. It's no wonder, criminal justice reformers say, that the United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration rates, with 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners. The U.S. locks up more of its citizens on a per capita basis than China, Cuba, Mexico, Russia or any other country in the world. Police made more than 1.8 million drug arrests in 2007 (the latest year data is available), about 775,000 were for nothing more than simple possession of marijuana for personal use. The Byrne Grant program is also at the center of some our country's most shocking civil rights abuses. The most notorious Bryne-funded scandal occurred in 1999 in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African-American residents (representing nearly half of the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to corroborate his allegations. Suspicions arose after two of the defendants accused were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program. In another Byrne-related scandal, a magistrate judge found that a regional narcotics task force in Hearne, Texas routinely targeted African Americans as part of an effort to drive blacks out of the majority white town. For the past 15 years, the Byrne-funded task force annually raided the homes of African Americans and arrested and prosecuted innocent citizens. The county governments involved in the Hearne task force scandal eventually settled a civil suit, agreeing to pay financial damages to some of the victims of discrimination. In a recent letter to House and Senate leaders, fifteen national civil rights and criminal justice organizations urged members of Congress to shift the Byrne Grant money in the stimulus bill to treatment, rehabilitation and other effective programs instead. The groups include included the ACLU, the National African-American Drug Policy Coalition, the National Black Police Association, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Justice Policy Institute, and the United Methodist Church. "The war on drugs is a new form of Jim Crow, systematically targeting communities of color and filling our prisons with nonviolent offenders at great taxpayer expense," Nadelmann said. "It is doubtful states could afford their punitive criminal justice polices without federal subsidies. Members of Congress who support the Byrne Grant program are perpetuating injustice and burdening taxpayers" ###

National: It's Right to Grant Citizens the Right to Vote The Sentencing Project's Director of Advocacy, Kara Gotsch, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in support of Maryland's recent move to reform the state's disenfranchisement policies. She wrote: "The scarlet 'F' worn by millions of Americans because of past felony convictions faded for some on April 24 as 52,000 citizens who live in Maryland regained their right to vote. For many people returning from prison, basic human needs, such as food and shelter, take priority over voting rights, but civic engagement is a crucial next step that influences the likelihood of successful reintegration and rehabilitation. Research shows that, among those who have been arrested, 27 percent of nonvoters were re-arrested, compared with 12 percent of voters. Voting promotes public safety because people who vote feel more connected to their communities and avoid falling back into crime." Pennsylvania: Disenfranchisement is an 'Iffy Proposition' "You see, in the United States, if you've committed a felony, voting is an iffy proposition," writes Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Annette John- Hall. Stating the advantages of re-enfranchisement, including decreasing recidivism rates and civic responsibility, John-Hall applauded Pennsylvania's disenfranchisement laws which allow those on probation and parole to vote. She also frowned upon the states that do not have such provisions and listed the cons of banning formerly incarcerated individuals from voting. The columnist focused on Reggie Henderson, operator of three barber shops in the state. Henderson, a formerly incarcerated African-American male who voted last week for the first time since being released from prison, noted that the mayoral primary was so important that "You've got no choice but to pay attention to it." See the Philadelphia Inquirer. Virginia: In Opposition to Reenfranchisement A reader submitted a letter to the editor in opposition to a (Newport News, Va.) Daily Press re- enfranchisement editorial. The reader, who identified himself as a crime victim wrote, "society's debt isn't paid until a felon has satisfied all of his victims for their tangible losses and mental anguish - and has publicly shown that he has truly turned his life around." International: Individuals Allowed to Vote in Iceland Prison Persons incarcerated in south Iceland's maximum security prison Litla-Hraun in were allowed to vote this week, according to the Iceland Review. Forty-two of 65 eligible voters, or 65 percent, chose to cast a ballot. Of the 77 individuals serving a sentence in Litla-Hraun, 12 are foreign citizens who were not eligible to vote. - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. Contact Information Email: [email protected] web: http://www.sentencingproject.org

For Immediate Release: May 16, 2007 Contact: E.C. Danuel D. Quaintance, Church of Cognizance at (928) 485-2952 I ask for nothing more than open minds to examine the possible consequences of putting scriptural interpretations of a recognized religion to a test, in order to decide if that religion qualifies for First Amendment protections. It is not uncommon amongst followers of various faiths to interpret their common faith in different ways. The Supreme Court stated, in Thomas v. Review Board, “Intrafaith differences of that kind are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve such differences in relation to the Religion Clauses,” then went on to instruct that “Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretations.” This human freedom to interpret the scriptures as we see them was something most Americans take for granted. This freedom is not something small churches can take for granted any longer. The attack against a small church, and religious interpretations in general, has begun in a U.S. District court in New Mexico. New Mexico follows prior decisions of the 10th Cir. Courts. The 10th Circuit upheld the use of a test in the District of New Mexico, which originated in deciding if the beliefs of a newly established, one-man, religion qualified to receive First Amendment protection. The test has become known as the Meyers Matrix. The use of the Meyers Matrix test was never challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States. Now the Meyers test has been inappropriately used to test if a religious group of a recognized religion deserves protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. Testimony of cultural anthropologist Dr. Deborah Pruitt, PhD, who specializes in many non-mainstream religions, revealed the Meyers test is highly skewed against a great number of recognized religions. Government, in an attempt to avoid the requirement of showing “a compelling government interest” for burdening the free “Exercise of Religion”, has chosen a new and innovative path of getting around that requirement. First government attorneys declared the religion was “a Bastardized form” of the religion. Then went on to declare, what synonymously amounts to claiming because the leader of a Christian church was no Christ, the church did not deserve the constitutional protection a religion enjoys. This wasn’t enough insult to freedom of religion, government turned to a Priest of another sect of the religion, as an expert witness, in an attempt to prove another religious group incorrectly interprets the teachings, practices, and modes of worship of their common faith. This move showed a total disrespect for prior decisions of the Supreme Court, like the one quoted above. In the end it didn’t matter that government attempted to test one sect against another. Government’s hoped results from such an attempt backfired. The testimony of government’s expert witness from the common faith ended up showing the small group might actually more correctly interpret many elements of their common faith. With the prior method failing it was up to the, recently appointed, Federal Judge to put the hammer down. U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera had her own methods of depriving religious freedoms. She decided to count the elements that were not met in the Meyers test, and then call that which was met “dicta,” which allowed her to not count that part of the test when arriving at a deciding average of whether or not the beliefs qualify for religious protections. By that move, and a determination that the “mantra” considered the “moral and ethical compass,” of this recognized religion, provided no moral or ethical guidance, the judge ruled that not enough factors of the Meyer Matrix were met to qualify for religious protections under RFRA or the First Amendment. End of story, the beginning of the end of a once highly honored protection amongst Americans. The only hope now is through contacting your representatives and asking them to investigate and put a halt to this disregard for cherished human rights. For more information visit http://danmary.org

Colorado: Governor, Secretary of State Oppose Parolee Voting Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat and former prosecutor, said he will veto the state's election law bill, SB 83, if supporters insist on putting parolee voting back in it. In late April, the House of Representatives rejected a provision that would have given individuals on parole the right to vote. Secretary of State Mike Coffman said the provision violated the state's constitution, according to the Denver Post. Texas: 'A Step in the Right Direction' The Daily Texan, a University of Texas at Austin student publication, published an opinion editorial in favor of restoring the voting rights of individuals charged with a non-violent offense. Texas restores voting rights after completion of sentence and parole or probation. The piece comes on the heels of proposed legislation, HB 770, to notify formerly incarcerated individuals of their voting status. The editorial stated that petty acts should be treated as such, and individuals would benefit more from treatment, and should not lose their voting rights as a result. "Thousands of acts carry felony charges, including stealing cable service and electrocuting fish," the editorial stated. "In Texas, there are 550,000 felons in prison and nearly 440,000 on probation. For many of them, the power of a ballot in their hand could far outweigh the seriousness of their crime."

Virginia: Let’s Follow in Their Footsteps … and Theirs, Too The Daily Press published an editorial expressing the need for Virginia to follow in the footsteps of Florida and Maryland by reforming their disenfranchisement laws. Current Virginia law permanently disenfranchises all individuals upon conviction of a felony. "They can ask to have their rights restored once they've completed their sentences, but the process is onerous, mean- spirited and uncertain. The result: More than 240,000 Virginians are deprived of the right to vote," the Press stated.

Maryland: Governor Signs Legislation Restoring Right to Vote On Tuesday, Gov. Martin O'Malley signed legislation restoring the right to vote to all formerly incarcerated individuals, ending the state's draconian lifetime voting ban. Coverage featuring the news included an "above-the-fold" front-page article in the Baltimore Sun. As a result of the legislation, which takes effect July 1, more than 50,000 Marylanders will be eligible to vote. Currently, those individuals convicted of two felonies can petition for vote restoration after their sentences and a three-year waiting period are completed. If both convictions are for violent offenses, the voting ban is permanent.