madisonacampbell

[madisonacampbell]

We hired a student that barely had any experience on their resume. ⁠ ⁠ She’s one of the best members of our team. ⁠ ⁠ She may not have had much real-life experience, but her dedication shined through during her interview. ⁠ ⁠ Her commitment to producing good and honest work, with a good attitude, was what drew me to her. ⁠ ⁠ Many companies require that their students have a plethora of experiences before their application is even considered. ⁠ ⁠ Anyone can build a good resume, but not everyone can be a quality hire. ⁠ ⁠ We give them opportunities to grow and lead teams and projects they never would have done before. ⁠ ⁠ We want to be that life-changing experience that teaches people more. ⁠ ⁠ Your experience shouldn’t determine your success. ⁠ ⁠ It’s your drive and attitude that should actually matter. ⁠ ⁠ Your commitment to growing and learning is what defines you. ⁠ ⁠ #Internship #internships #internshipabroad #internshipdiaries #internshiplife #internshipdays #internshipprogram #internshiptenerife #internshipflow #internshipinspain #InternshipJakarta #internshipstudent #internshipsclasses #internshipopenings #internshipmoment #InternshipIndonesia #InternshipFair #internshipisalmostover #internshipmanagement #internshipfair2015 #internshippart2 #InternshipProgramme #internshipproject #internshipends #internshipsataferro #internshipcombinedprogram #internshipapplication #internship2016 https://instagr.am/p/CHYfYIWHi29/

[madisonacampbell]

Let’s talk. ⁣ #systemicchange #ally #antiracism #selfgrowth #selfdevelopment #growthmindset #mindshift #inspiredaction #healthymindset #healthyminds #selfawareness #personalgrowth #selfconfidence #selfconfident #selfimprovement #confidenceiskey #strongmindset #selfmotivation https://instagr.am/p/CHA_pO5gTCm/

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: At the Polls, Episode 7: Why Do We Take Voting Rights Away in America?

At the Polls, Episode 7: Why Do We Take Voting Rights Away in America?

Across the country, over 5 million people who are of voting age cannot vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws, including one in five Black Americans. These laws are a relic of the Jim Crow era, and were intentionally designed to suppress the vote — particularly the Black vote — by limiting the impact of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. This week, Demetrius Jifunza, Lewis Conway, and Jennifer Taylor join us on At the Polls to share how these laws have impacted them personally after incarceration, and how states are fighting back. Listen to the podcast to learn more.

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/918035251

Losing the right to vote isn’t the only way a felony conviction can derail life, long after a person completes their sentence. Having a criminal record can make it more difficult to get a job, secure housing, access health care, or even care for one’s children. These obstacles stand in the way of formerly incarcerated people trying to reenter society and rebuild their lives. The good news is that several states are reforming felony disenfranchisement laws, often with bipartisan support. Listen to this week’s episode of At the Polls and subscribe to learn more about felony disenfranchisement and what’s being done to stop this voter suppression.

Published October 28, 2020 at 12:38PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3e6Lfr2) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Racial Justice Demands That Every Vote Is Counted

Racial Justice Demands That Every Vote Is Counted

This year, ensuring every mail-in ballot is counted is more important than ever. While the share of voters casting ballots by mail has grown steadily in recent years, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in mail-in voting during primaries that has continued in the lead-up to Election Day. Already, 90.7 million absentee ballots have been requested or sent to voters in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Critically, a growing number of people of color plan to vote by mail rather than in-person in this election.�� Anticipating this unprecedented surge in absentee ballots, the ACLU Analytics team generated estimates of absentee voting volume by race and candidate support by vote method in every county in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. The team combined data gathered by a nationwide representative tracking survey conducted by YouGov with turnout modeling based on updated in-cycle ballot data to construct estimates through statistical modeling. Our findings identify which counties potentially face the largest racial representation gap — that is, if the absentee ballot count is not completed, they will cause the biggest disenfranchisement of voters of color. What happens in these counties may well change the course and outcome of the election. Across all four states, we found that the key geographies to watch will be the greater metro areas with large populations of people of color, such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta. Failing to fully count the absentee votes in the counties that are home to these metro areas would mean disregarding between 32.9 percent (in Gwinnett County, Georgia) and 61.4 percent (in Washtenaw County, Michigan) of the votes of people of color.  While any call about the outcome of the election before many ballots are counted is improper,  the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t begin processing ballots until Election Day or the day before increases the odds of confusing, unfounded, and premature victory calls before all ballots have been counted. Further, Georgia has the largest gap in vote-by-mail usage by race. While ballot processing can happen earlier, a time crunch and election staff shortages mean a quick count is not assured.  Attempts to suppress the by-mail vote and the voices of voters of color — whether through delays, ballot rejections, or outright interference with the full count — can absolutely change the outcomes of the election this year. We must keep an eagle eye on the counties identified in our report and make sure the mail-in vote is counted completely and accurately. Mishandling or miscounting ballots in these counties could perpetuate the historical disenfranchisement of voters of color with which we are all too familiar.  In spite of past elections that may have primed voters to expect a winner to be declared the night of the election, it’s vital for us all to remember that the official winner is never truly known on election night. In every election, the results called on election night are based on projections of unofficial tallies. Sufficient results to even make those projections may take days if not weeks, and for the sake of accuracy, that’s a good thing. This year, discounting the mail-in vote would disenfranchise voters of color and distort the election outcome. Ensuring that every vote — whether cast by mail, early, or in-person on Election Day — is counted must be the responsibility and priority of election officials everywhere. Pundits and politicians don’t decide the outcome of the election — voters do. 

Published October 28, 2020 at 11:57AM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3kC3WoP) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: We’re Ready for the Election

We’re Ready for the Election

With less than a week to go, the only thing we can be sure of is that this Election Day will most likely look, feel, and be different than previous years. We are, after all, living through a pandemic, economic crisis, fight for racial justice, and an election season.  If you haven’t planned how you are going to cast your vote or already voted this election, there’s still time. You can find more information here about how to make your voting plan, and learn about the specific guidelines in your state. If you plan to vote by mail, consider dropping off your ballot in-person at a drop box or election office. If you plan to vote in-person, make sure to check the location of your polling place or early vote center. You can also learn about your rights at the polls here.  And just as we’ve been asking our supporters to make a plan to vote, we at the ACLU have been preparing for months and years for this Election Day: activating volunteers, motivating voters, and fighting for our rights across the country in courts, legislatures, and in the streets.  The ACLU national office and our state affiliates and chapters have been working around the clock to protect and expand your access to the ballot this election season. Through litigation and advocacy, we’ve fought and scored 26 victories in 20 states and Puerto Rico to safeguard the right to vote. Together, these states are home to more than 154 million Americans and wield 247 votes in the Electoral College. But our work doesn’t stop there. Our state offices are working with a network of election protection lawyers and volunteers on the ground to make sure every eligible American can exercise their constitutional right to vote and each and every vote is counted. The ACLU is at the ready to act swiftly and use all of the tools and resources at our disposal to protect the vote. If you have questions about casting your ballot or difficulty voting, remember you have the right to vote and help is a phone call away at 1-866-OUR-VOTE.   The ACLU doesn’t represent one party, person, or side. Our mission is to protect our democracy and realize its promise for all. This election, during a pandemic, is an all-hands-on-deck moment for our entire ACLU community. The ACLU was created in a time of deep crisis for our nation, and time and time again, we’ve been called on to defend freedom in the most difficult circumstances.      For four years, people have counted on us to do everything we can to protect people’s rights and our democracy. We won’t back down. On behalf of every member of our ACLU staff, we will continue to defend our fundamental freedoms with all that it takes for as long as it takes. Even in the darkest periods in modern American history, the ACLU has never mourned the present.   

Published October 27, 2020 at 04:21PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3jCwzRk) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Dear Congress: Platform Accountability Should Not Threaten Online Expression

Dear Congress: Platform Accountability Should Not Threaten Online Expression

Tomorrow, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing entitled “Does Section 230 Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?” This is just the latest attempt by Congress and the Trump administration to amend, reinterpret, or eliminate Section 230, a key provision of federal law that generally ensures online platforms, including social media, can’t be held liable for the speech and content their users post on these platforms. This law means Yelp can’t be held legally responsible every time one of its users posts a false negative review. The Bed Bug Registry doesn’t have to visit every hotel with a magnifying glass to confirm reports from the public. And Facebook can offer a forum for billions of users to share their thoughts, pictures, memes, and videos freely without having to approve every post before they go up.  Over the summer, Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the Federal Communications Commission to commence a rulemaking to reinterpret Section 230 in ways entirely contrary to its purpose. Meanwhile, Congress has put forward numerous legislative proposals to amend 230. These efforts are confused at best. Many Republicans believe that the platforms at stake display an anti-conservative bias, disproportionately censoring and fact-checking conservative speakers. Many Democrats are concerned about censorship of communities of color, LGBTQ voices, and women and nonbinary people. Others are concerned that platforms promote disinformation, conspiracy theories, misinformation about voting, violence, and hate speech. To sum up critics’ views: platforms are censoring people too much and not enough all at once. Somehow, policy makers think that the solution to these alleged problems is to expand the circumstances under which platforms can be liable for their users’ speech by amending Section 230.  To be clear, amending this provision will not solve any of these concerns. In fact, many of the proposed changes would exacerbate over-censorship, and other proposals would promote the proliferation of misinformation about voting. Yet President Trump and Congress continue to advocate for changes to the law in an effort to encourage the censorship they like and discourage the censorship they don’t.  Section 230, in addition to providing a shield against liability for users’ speech, enables online platforms to cultivate orderly, pleasant, and useful sites. While the biggest social media companies, responsible for hosting the speech of billions, should resist calls to censor lawful speech, Section 230 allows sites to delete abusive accounts, remove content that violates the site’s terms of service, or eliminate voter misinformation without risking liability for the speech that they do host. Almost as important as what Section 230 protects is what it does not. Section 230 does not shield bad actors. If you harass or defame someone online, you are responsible for your illegal conduct.  Moreover, platforms are liable for their own illegal conduct. They can be sued or prosecuted for the content they create and the conduct they engage in, or materially contribute to, that violates any law. That is why Illinois residents were able to sue Facebook under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act when the platform used facial recognition technology on them without their consent. And that’s why we were able to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to challenge Facebook’s targeting of employment ads to younger men only, excluding all women, non-binary people, and older men.  Section 230 has permitted platforms to host all kinds of user content, and created space for social movements like #MeToo and content creators on sites like Instagram, TikTok and Twitch to flourish. It has also enabled platforms to host the speech of activists and those organizing protests, from the Arab Spring to today’s protests against police brutality. If it weren’t for Section 230, website owners would be far more reluctant to freely permit public posts knowing that the site could be investigated, shut down, sued, or charged with a felony over one user’s illegal tweet or post — including that of the President. And if that protection is unavailable only for a certain category of content, as some proposed reinterpretations of the law propose, the platforms will censor far more speech related to that category than they could constitutionally be liable for, simply to spare themselves the massive court costs they could face. This is exactly what has happened in the past. Congress last amended Section 230 in 2018, through a law called SESTA/FOSTA. It was purportedly aimed only at creating platform liability for illegal sex trafficking. We warned at the time that rather than face liability, platforms would engage in excessive censorship that would harm the LGTBTQ and sex worker communities in particular. As predicted, after SESTA/FOSTA’s passage, entire websites that provided forums for sex workers to connect, share information to protect themselves, and build community disappeared. Speech suffered, and so did the health and safety of vulnerable communities. If the EARN IT Act, which is currently moving through the Senate, becomes law, it will create similar harm. Amending 230 to narrow the scope of the editorial decisions platforms can make while still receiving 230’s immunity shield can also be dangerous. For example, the Online Content Policy Modernization Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to mark up this week, would create new liability risks for platforms that “editorialize” or make virtually any other changes to user-generated content. That means sites that label and flag misleading or incorrect user speech, or point users to trusted and fact-checked sources to counter falsehoods, could be exposed to greater liability risk. Such a change could discourage sites like Twitter from providing links to factual information about mail-in ballots under tweets that blatantly lie about voting by mail, not unlike the incident that sparked President Trump’s executive order. The desire on the part of policy makers to do more to create platform accountability is understandable. The ACLU shares that goal, and has long advocated for strong consumer privacy protections at the federal and state level for that very reason. We have also pressed the platforms to provide transparency and meaningful review processes for their content moderation practices. However, we should be wary of proposals that risk harming online expression and be skeptical of focusing on Section 230 as a method of requiring platform accountability.  Section 230 protects people’s ability to create, communicate, and build community online. The ACLU will remain vigilant in ensuring that the internet continues to be a place for self-expression and creation for all. We urge members of Congress to do the same, particularly as they examine proposals to amend Section 230. 

Published October 27, 2020 at 10:46AM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3mk6bxw) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Don’t Let the Supreme Court Open the Door to More Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

Don’t Let the Supreme Court Open the Door to More Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case about whether governments can be forced to give taxpayer funding to faith-based organizations that provide government services in ways that discriminate against LGBTQ people. If that sentence took you a minute to unravel, and then you couldn’t quite believe you read it right — well, you’re not alone. But unfortunately, it’s true. The Fulton case, which will be heard on Nov. 4, involves the foster care system. Catholic Social Services had a contract from Philadelphia to provide services to foster youth, including screening foster parents. When the city learned CSS insisted on following its own religious screening criteria — which rejected same-sex couples as foster parents — the city didn’t renew its contract. CSS then sued the city. In a similar case, a Protestant organization contracted to provide these services declined to place foster youth with foster parents who were not Protestants, and specifically discriminated against Jewish and Catholic families. Child welfare experts agree that these types of policies lead to more foster youth spending more time in group homes, because the agencies are turning away eligible foster parents. But the implications of the case go far beyond the foster care system. Local, state, and federal governments often give taxpayer dollars to private agencies to provide government services. Many of these private agencies are faith-based. For example, the U.S. State Department contracts with nine organizations to provide resettlement services to refugees, including housing. Six of the nine are faith-based, and five of those six are Christian. Faith-based organizations have government contracts to provide everything from public assistance to substance use treatment, from childcare to shelters. Many of these faith-based organizations do not discriminate and follow best practices in their field to put the needs of those receiving their services first. And that’s how it should be. In the past, the Supreme Court has said that governments can’t deny an organization funding just because the organization is religious. But our opponents in Fulton want something much more than the ability to compete for government funding on equal footing with secular organizations. They want a right for religious organizations to receive government funding to provide government services, even if they selectively refuse to provide those services and discriminate in violation of contract terms and the law. This isn’t religious liberty. It’s government-funded discrimination against the most vulnerable in our society, excused because some want to impose their religious beliefs on others. If the Supreme Court agrees with Catholic Social Services, it is the people who are most marginalized who will suffer. Middle class and wealthy people for the most part get to choose whether and how to engage with faith-based organizations. Working class and poor people do not. The possibilities for harm are sweeping, and there would be no clear stopping point. If you stop by your local church on your way home from work to apply for food stamps, they might stop processing your application as soon as they learn you are pregnant and unmarried. If you are a transgender woman with no housing and no place to stay, you could be turned away from a federally-funded homeless shelter run by a faith-based organization. You could end up sleeping on the street in the freezing cold because of who you are. If you were told you had to complete a drug treatment program funded by the state government to avoid jail time, that program could insist that you embrace Christianity to complete it. You might not be allowed to bring your kids to a taxpayer-funded daycare center because you have a partner who is the same sex as you or a different religion than you. If you are a high school student interested in an after-school program paid for by your local government, you could be rejected because you are Mormon or bisexual. These same communities are under attack in many other ways. For example, the Trump administration recently proposed a regulation designed to allow federally-funded homeless shelters to turn people away because they are transgender, or because they don’t match sex stereotypes. If this proposal were to become law, it would embolden life-threatening discrimination against some of the most vulnerable people in the nation, and lead to more early deaths of trans people. The wrong decision in Fulton could do the same. And because a ruling in Fulton would be based on the constitution, Congress would not be able to fix it. But that’s not a reason to give up — it’s a reason to fight harder for our communities in every way we can, both before the court’s decision and after. We must insist that the court not bend the constitution to force the government to withhold services from some of the most vulnerable in our communities. We must fight for the economic security of LGBTQ people, whether that is through passing the Equality Act, decriminalizing sex work, or providing emergency COVID-19 rent relief. And we must fight for genuine religious liberty for all.

Published October 26, 2020 at 01:11PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/2HAIimC) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Attacks on Trans Athletes are Also an Attack on Intersex People

Attacks on Trans Athletes are Also an Attack on Intersex People

Intersex people make up as much as 1.7 percent of the population and are born with bodies that differ from what others might think of as “typically” male or female. Although being intersex isn’t that rare, this population is widely misunderstood and underrepresented, much like the trans community. Racist colonial erasure, late-stage capitalism, and the medical industrial complex have combined to create implicit assumptions (and often explicit recommendations) with which trans and intersex groups are all-too familiar. We are told, usually by cis and non-intersex people, there’s only one right way to have a body — and that that body should be as normatively close to binary and cis as possible. At interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, we are working hard with our partners at Patterson Belknap LLP to prepare our friend-of-the-court brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This follows the district court blocking an Idaho law that targeted trans student athletes and sought to exclude trans and intersex women and girls from school sports. We’re hopeful the judges of the Ninth Circuit recognize why it is so important to stop this law from going into effect. As we prepare our brief, we also approach Intersex Awareness Day on October 26. It is particularly important on this day to recognize why intersex people continue to show up in support of the trans community and in opposition to the unrelenting efforts to deny trans people their rights. Intersex groups and the advocates who work on their behalf joined the effort to oppose HB 500 — Idaho’s law attacking transgender student athletes — not only because many intersex people are also trans (and vice versa), and not only becase the proposed approach to sex testing in sports violates the rights of the intersex community as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XeL5R5N_3L8

Intersex people are fighting this fight too because the community viscerally understands what’s at stake. As the complaint filed by ACLU clients Lindsay Hecox and Jane Doe explains, “Often, children discovered to be intersex in infancy are subjected to nonconsensual, harmful, and irreversible ‘normalizing’ surgical interventions, including reducing the size of the clitoris, creating a vaginal opening, and removing hormone-producing gonads in an attempt to erase their intersex differences based on notions of what is ‘normal’ for boys’ or girls’ bodies.” This is precisely the type of abuse (and it is abuse: this is deemed a form of torture by the United Nations) that flows from anti-trans bills like HB 500. There are intersex students in every school district in Idaho who in infancy survived the trauma of these surgeries, only to still be considered not “female” enough to participate on women and girls’ teams.

The plaintiffs in this case are women who were fortunate enough to have medical decision-making power over their own bodies, at least in the realm of trans-related care, and who rightfully deserve to engage in college sports without anyone scrutinizing their sex characteristics. No one should be told by a surgeon or a coach or anyone else that their clitoris is too big to be female, or that their chromosomes are more real than their gender, or that their hormones are too “masculine” to allow them to compete as who they are. Trans and intersex communities have allied together because we know these are false boundaries invented to exclude already oppressed communities, usually along racist and ableist lines. Our bodies may transcend common conceptions of sex and gender, yet we exist within these systems (like sports, medicine, and institutional settings) every day and most often leave them better than when we found them. Simplistic, bigoted approaches to trans and intersex people in these settings succeed because of intellectual and moral laziness. The refusal by the cis community to creatively imagine solutions isn’t surprising because they operate everyday within systems that prioritize cis-ness. But what’s especially egregious is when attempts are made to change the  rules of the system with the specific intent of further harming groups that are already targeted in virtually all other areas, as in the case of HB 500.  The appropriate response when trans and intersex athletes try to work within an already flawed system is gracious celebration, rather than exclusion and derision. It’s telling that the resources in support of HB 500 are funneled toward litigation to appeal to the far right rather than actually building up women’s sports. These attacks are never about meaningfully protecting women.  The challenges faced by the plaintiffs in this case and those they represent are considerable already. As we celebrate Intersex Awareness Day on the 26th, let’s remember that a lack of awareness about trans and intersex lived realities — and the fact that many of us are actually joyful about our trans and intersex bodies — has allowed a cloud of shame and stigma to conceal what no lawsuit can change. Trans and intersex people are a part of the vast and diverse beauty of human existence. We will continue to improve upon tired understandings of sex and gender for as long as these systems exist.  Alesdair H. Ittelson is the Legal Director at interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, the nation’s largest and oldest organization working to protect the rights of people born with variations in sex characteristics. 

Published October 23, 2020 at 12:42PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/35qR9PI) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: The Supreme Court Case That Could Jeopardize LGBTQ Rights

The Supreme Court Case That Could Jeopardize LGBTQ Rights

In March 2018, the city of Philadelphia learned that two of the agencies it contracted with to provide foster care services would not, based on religious objection, accept same-sex couples as foster parents. The city told the agencies their contracts with the city were in jeopardy unless they complied with basic nondiscrimination requirements. While one of the agencies agreed to comply, the other — Catholic Social Services (CSS) — refused. Instead, CSS sued the city, claiming the Constitution gives it the right to opt out of the nondiscrimination requirement. After a lower court and a federal circuit court ruled in the city’s favor, CSS appealed to the Supreme Court. The case, Fulton v City of Philadelphia, has implications not only for the future of foster care, but for the protection of all people from discrimination in the alleged name of religion. Arguments are set for November 4th.  Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, joined the podcast this week to discuss what’s at stake in Fulton. “The ACLU has no question about the right of people and organizations to have their beliefs and to practice their beliefs, but it’s to practice your beliefs as long as they don’t hurt others,” said Melling. “And in this context, if Catholic Social Services can practice its beliefs in terms of turning away families because they’re same-sex, it is hurting others.”

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/915607339

Published October 23, 2020 at 11:45AM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/35rnrdl) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: At the Polls, Episode 6: Your Voting Questions, Answered

At the Polls, Episode 6: Your Voting Questions, Answered

When we launched the podcast miniseries, At the Polls, we asked listeners to send us their questions about voting this year. While over 44 million people have already cast their ballots, some questions remain about our rights and options as voters. Listen to the full podcast for your most frequent voter questions, answered.  

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/913781386

Should I deliver my ballot by hand or by mail?  All voters should make a voting plan that works best for them, whether that means mailing their ballot, putting it in a drop box, or delivering it by hand. First, voters should make sure they know the deadlines in their state. Some states require all ballots to be back in the hands of election officials on Election Day. In others, your ballot must be postmarked by a certain date. Rules vary across states, so look up deadlines in your state as you decide how to cast your ballot — and return it early.  How do I make sure my mail-in ballot is counted?  In 45 states, voters can track their ballots online to see if it has been received. In other states — Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Mississippi — some local election officials track ballots. To see if your state offers ballot tracking, check out aclu.org/voter under “voting tips.” If I use a voting machine, how can I confirm that my vote has not been altered? There have never been any occurrences of widespread fraud in American elections. Elections are administered at the county and municipal level throughout the country, and polling places are staffed by professional election administrators whose job is to make sure your ballot is counted and your voice is heard. Further, most jurisdictions in the U.S. use paper ballots, ballot marking devices, or machines that provide a voter with a verified paper trail that they can use to make sure their vote was recorded properly. I’ve requested an absentee ballot. Can I change my mind and vote in person? The answer depends on where you live. In some states, including California, Michigan, and Florida, you must bring your absentee ballot with you when you vote in person. If you haven’t received your mail-in ballot, you will have to cast a provisional ballot at the polls.  Besides presidential candidates, what else can I expect on my ballot? There are important and impactful races up and down the ballot this year, from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate and state and local elections. While advocates can’t go around knocking on doors this year due to COVID-19, we can all get involved online. Local ballot measures can impact civil rights and civil liberties nationwide.  Oklahoma’s State Question 805 is an example. Oklahoma one of the biggest incarcerators in the country — and in the world — in part because of unjust policies that can land you in prison for decades or even life for low-level offenses like drug possession and shoplifting. There are similar policies across the country, so what happens in Oklahoma this year could help to start the conversation in other states.  Nebraska’s Initiative 428 is another example of a critical economic justice policy that could have nationwide implications. Measure 428 would put a cap on interest rates from predatory payday lenders at 36 percent. Currently, interest rates can be as high as 400 percent — often trapping individuals into a vicious cycle of debt. Payday lending is a predatory practice that has historically targeted communities of color across the country, so all voters should pay attention to Nebraska’s outcome on Initiative 428. If members of my family can’t speak English, can they vote?  English is not a requirement to cast your ballot. Many jurisdictions provide resources to accommodate multilingual voting and to ensure that everybody can exercise their right to vote regardless of which language they speak.  If you have run into issues when voting, call the non-partisan Election Protection Hotline. 

English: 1-866-OUR-VOTE / 1-866-687-8683

Spanish: 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA / 1-888-839-8682

Arabic: 1-844-YALLA-US / 1-844-925-5287

For Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog, or Vietnamese: 1-888-274-8683

What should I do if I encounter intimidation at the polls?  Voter intimidation can take many forms, but voters should not expect to encounter it when they go to the polls. The ACLU and the broader voting rights community remain vigilant and are working to make sure that no voters face intimidation while exercising their right to vote.  No one has the right to take your vote from you. But if you do experience intimidation, there are ways to get help. Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE to report occurrences of voter intimidation. At the end of the day, what everybody should know is that they can get help. The ACLU and other voting rights advocates are ready to jump into action should problems arise. Your job is to vote.  For information on voting in your state, see the Let People Vote guide. If you want to volunteer from home, visit peoplepower.org to learn how. 

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/913781386

Published October 22, 2020 at 01:56PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/2TlkxB2) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: When Black Mourners are Threatened with Official Violence

When Black Mourners are Threatened with Official Violence

In early June, as people around the globe joined in massive protests against the police brutality and racism that killed him, George Floyd was laid to rest at the same Pearland, Texas cemetery where his mother is buried. Led by a horse-drawn carriage containing his body, George Floyd’s grieving family and hundreds of supporters walked slowly from the church to the burial ceremony.    What they did not know is that on the rooftops above them, six teams of snipers were positioned to fire on the crowd of mourners. Manned surveillance aircraft and drones circled in the sky above. And hundreds of local and state police, federal agents including Border Patrol, and National Guard personnel were prepared to descend upon the mourners with extreme violence at even the slightest provocation.     All of this was revealed in police records that the ACLU of Texas obtained earlier this month. The records also show the federal tactical teams were authorized to get “geared up” and “ready to deploy” in view of the crowd in response to as little as “verbal aggressive language” against police officers or throwing empty water bottles. And their instructions permitted rapid escalation, including the use of gas munitions and even “use of deadly force anytime under Ch. 9 Texas Penal Code” against the mourners if the federal agents, police officers, or soldiers believed it necessary.     A Powerpoint briefing deck created in preparation for these deployments describes the “mission” of this multi-agency force as “provid[ing] security for Pearland Police Department, Dawson High School, and the surrounding area with officers stationed for a quick response to rioting and looting.” The only apparent factual basis for these fears were social media posts and messages that a handful of Pearland residents shared with the police department, in many cases expressing their fears that the burial would lead to looting and other property damage.     There is a peculiar kind of racist imagination at play in these messages and the broader discourse on “looting”: the notion that rather than paying their respects to the dead and watching in anguish as George Floyd is lowered into the ground, Black mourners will use the funeral and burial as a reason to fan out across a small Texas town and steal goods from its stores. In this warped framework, any gathering of Black people expressing sadness or anger is a threat to be surveilled, and something that must be neutralized if its participants show the smallest sign of organized resistance. This results in heavily armed police and federal agents being given full permission to wield violence, including deadly violence, against Black people even in times of grief. In this framework, no corner of Black life is free from the threat of police violence — including mourning the people whose lives were taken by that same violence.     This same racist, harmful role for policing — planning violence against Black people in order to deter real or imagined threats to white property ownership — dates back to slavery. Such white fears were common during slavery, because systems of white supremacy require force to maintain themselves. Indeed, the first municipally-funded police department in America was the Charleston City Watch and Guard, a specialized form of slave patrol that monitored Black social gatherings, shut down underground meetings, and sought to block enslaved Black people from organizing resistance to or escape from bondage.    After the end of the Civil War, slavery ended but the mission of police departments and local sheriffs did not change much. Across the former Confederacy, these agencies enforced the Black Codes: an arbitrary set of restrictions that made it hard for newly-freed Black people to organize politically or move to new places in search of better opportunities. Texas was no exception; the Texas Rangers in particular were widely known in the nineteenth century for extrajudicial killings of Mexican Americans and bounty hunting of Black people who escaped from slavery. Meanwhile, their investigation of a 1919 race riot focused less on the Ku Klux Klan than on civil rights groups that they blamed for inciting the riot (at the height of this riot, a mob of nearly 1,000 white people burned down multiple Black-owned houses and killed Black people without law enforcement intervening). It was more than a century after the end of the Civil War, in 1988, that a Black person was first appointed to join the Texas Rangers. And this was not confined to the South: Police in northern cities adopted similar racist practices as more Black people arrived as part of the Great Migration.    Targeting George Floyd’s burial march with snipers and aerial surveillance fits all too comfortably into this history. Not only are the white fears the same, but the weapons and agencies being used to placate those fears and maintain white supremacy are the same. Now, they’re just upgraded with 21st century technology and assisted by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which has grown to become the country’s largest federal law enforcement agency and claimed broad powers in communities across the nation.    As a result, George Floyd’s family and community cannot even mourn his death at the hands of police without being surveilled by aircraft and drones, under the watch of snipers, federal tactical teams, and National Guard members ready to unleash tear gas and bullets on them at a moment’s notice.     It would be both lazy and wrong to blame this on “bad apples.” Multiple officials at the local, state, and federal levels approved this militarized and potentially lethal response to George Floyd’s burial ceremony. This is about the rot at the core of American policing.    It is time for us to fundamentally rethink the role of policing in American society. While crime has been trending downward for decades and violent crime and property crime have fallen significantly since the early 1990s, over the past four decades, the cost of policing in the United States has almost tripled, resulting in further lethal violence and harm against Black communities. Until we address how white supremacy so easily uses policing as a weapon against Black communities, and until we concretely reduce the role, power, and responsibilities of the police in American life, Black mourners of the next victim of police violence will be forced to wonder whether a sniper on a nearby rooftop is awaiting orders to interrupt their mourning with yet more violence. 

Published October 22, 2020 at 12:52PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/31uQDz6) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: What 40 Years in Sex Work has Taught Me About Decriminalization

What 40 Years in Sex Work has Taught Me About Decriminalization

Content Warning: This piece contains graphic descriptions of violence, including sexual assault.

The worst night of my life was the night that changed everything.   It was hot out. That’s the code word sex workers use to warn each other if police are nearby. I ducked into a card room called Georgianne’s to hide, where I busied myself with an arcade machine, slipping quarter after quarter into the coin slot to make the world go away for a moment — or at least for the length of one Ms. Pac-Man game.   That peace came to a halt when a man came up and flashed a wad of bills in my face. He told me to meet him out back so the police wouldn’t see him leave with me. I knew this was never a good idea. As a sex worker, if no one sees who you leave with, you may never come home. But I didn’t care and went with him anyway, thinking he was like any other client on any other night.   When we got to his house, he locked the door and blocked it with a fan. He said he was a police officer, but I knew he was lying. A police officer would never take me home. My gut told me not to go through with it, but when I tried to leave, he snatched me by the hair and dragged me back into his house. He raped me several times that night. He even tried to kill me.

In the movies, when someone strangles you, you die. That isn’t always the truth. You come back and you breathe again and you’re in the same hell that you left, surrounded by blood and broken glass. I didn’t know whether the blood was his or mine, but it didn’t matter. That night, I fought for my life like only the dying can.

I tried everything, until finally I played dead and he bought it — but it didn’t stop him. Thinking I was dead, he dragged me out the back door and down the steps to his car, where he raped me one more time before throwing me in the trunk. I watched, still playing dead, as he went back inside the car to clean up the mess. I had a chance to run — and I took it.   My legs wouldn’t work. My foot had been badly injured, too. So I crawled and limped away until I made it to the first cross street. A car drove up. Four men were inside. It was only when I saw the looks on their faces — pure terror — that I realized the extent of what that man did to me.   “We don’t want anything to do with this,” said the driver. “But we’re gonna take you somewhere safe.”   They took me to the UC Davis Medical Center. I ended up in the rape unit, where nurses washed off the blood, stitched up my wounds, and gave me a rape kit before calling the police. Even though I knew I might be arrested for prostitution, I decided to report anyway — that man was too dangerous, and I didn’t want anybody else to go through what I did. I went straight to the district attorney, who looked at the pictures and the rape kit and decided to believe me.   But at trial, it became painfully clear that my word as a sex worker was worthless. I’ll never forget the way it felt to take the stand and retell the experience for an entire courtroom, answering questions about why I was in a certain place at a certain hour, as if it was my fault. I knew they judged me for what I did for a living, and the outcome of the case speaks volumes to how society sees sex workers: The man who kidnapped, raped, and tried to kill me was sentenced to 45 days of community service. According to the court, what he did to me that night amounted to petty theft.

Kristen DiAngelo.

Credit: Max Whitaker

My story is as shocking as it is common. Sex workers frequently face violence on the job, but we usually won’t report because we might be arrested in the process. When we do report, we don’t get heard because of the social stigma that being a sex worker carries. My experience that night and the injustice that followed spurred me to fight for the rights society denied me. And the first step in that fight is to decriminalize sex work.   Since sex workers do not have access to many of the same protections as other workers, we have to fend for ourselves. It isn’t easy to keep yourself safe if you are constantly afraid of being arrested. Those of us who work on the street will rush through client negotiations to avoid being seen, sometimes jumping into dangerous situations with violent clients because we didn’t have time to screen the client first. People who work online also have limited ability to watch out for their safety. In 2018, the passage of SESTA/FOSTA banned many online sex work and client screening platforms that sex workers use to stay safe. And once you’re caught in a risky situation, there’s nobody to call for help without risking arrest.

Criminalization also puts us at higher risk of police abuse. Throughout my career, I’ve been sexually assaulted and robbed by the police several times, and I couldn’t do anything about it. I have also encountered police officers who helped me — in some instances, possibly saving my life by warning me of areas to avoid if other police were patrolling nearby. But sex workers should not have to rely on chance to stay safe, and those who swore to serve and protect should be helping rather than harming us.   I have been to jail several times for prostitution. Other sex workers, such as trans women of color, are even more likely to be arrested, incarcerated, and harassed, partly because the police profile and target them. The punishment doesn’t end with a jail sentence — having an arrest for prostitution on your criminal record is a scarlet letter, considered a crime of moral turpitude. It makes it difficult or sometimes even impossible to get a job, sign a lease, or access everyday services — even banking. I was shocked when I got a letter from my bank announcing they were closing my account. Even though I had good credit and had been a customer for decades, they said my job made me a “high risk” customer and violated their code of ethics. If sex work were decriminalized, banks would probably have fairer policies, and it would be easier for us to advocate for our rights.

Opponents of decriminalization are often trying to “save” us from trafficking and exploitation. In my experience, attempts to save sex workers through law enforcement have done the opposite. Raids, arrests, and stop-and-search policies push us further into the margins, where violence goes unchecked. Making an occupation illegal does not stop exploitation and trafficking — exploitation and trafficking proliferate because sex workers can’t report, don’t have resources, and social stigma silences us. Sex workers are not infantile beings who don’t know what’s good for us. We are the last people who want to perpetuate exploitation and harm, because we’re the ones who are affected. We want labor rights, we want justice, and we want to be treated the same as any other worker under the law. First and foremost, we need people to listen to us.   I’m proud to be a part of the movement for sex workers’ rights. In my home state of California, we banned the use of condoms as evidence of sex work by police. This will encourage workers to carry and use protection without fear of arrest, protecting both their health and that of their clients.The same law also allows sex workers to report violent offenses such as trafficking, rape, and robbery with complete immunity from arrest — not just for prostitution, but for misdemeanor charges related to sex work or drugs. Every day I see more signs that attitudes are changing, including at the federal level. Last year, Congress introduced the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act, which calls for studying the effects of SESTA/FOSTA on sex workers’ safety and well-being. Decriminalization is by no means a panacea, but it will create positive changes for sex workers.   If sex work were decriminalized, sex workers would be able to seek help when we’re in danger. We could go to the hospital in times of emergency without fear of arrest. We would have more autonomy. And we wouldn’t get entangled with the criminal justice system for a misdemeanor that will follow us for life. Decriminalization is the step we need to take to keep us all safe.

Published October 20, 2020 at 12:41PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/2Hh2dqx) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Eye on Civil Liberties: Where You Can Have an Impact in Elections Closer to Home

Eye on Civil Liberties: Where You Can Have an Impact in Elections Closer to Home

The intense focus on the presidential race can easily obscure policies that could have more of a direct impact on communities in both red and blue states but they are no less important. Many voters don’t engage with the electoral process because they don’t think their votes make a difference or count for much. Down-ballot races are where voters can make a real impact in shaping policies and spark a broader public debate.  The ACLU is nonpartisan, so our goal with down-ballot campaigns is to ensure that voters are educated about the potential consequences of an election, not to support specific candidates. We don’t tell voters who to vote for but provide them the tools to cast an informed vote by elevating the key issues at play in the race.  So what policies are at stake in this election? Here’s a quick snapshot of the types of civil liberties and civil rights issues that could be on your ballot.  Criminal Justice Reform This summer police accountability and other criminal justice reforms were thrust front and center. These are issues we’ve long worked on but now take on new importance and are reflected across the spectrum of races where we’re engaged.  Take the Maricopa County, Arizona attorney race. Elected prosecutors, district attorneys, or county attorneys have an enormous impact on the criminal legal system — they decide who to charge with crimes, whether to offer a second chance or send someone to prison, and when to hold police accountable. In Maricopa, we’re focusing on how candidates can hold police accountable when they kill someone and end prosecutions of low-level marijuana possession, charges that disproportionately impact people of color.  Conditions of confinement are also a key issue in the criminal justice space. Sheriffs are often the people directly in charge of local jails, meaning they’re responsible for conditions in these facilities and the people incarcerated there. In Cobb County, Georgia, 50 people have died in custody since 2003, and others have experienced deadly neglect, misconduct by deputies, inhumane conditions, extended lockdowns, and inadequate medical care. Through our engagement in this race, voters could not only improve conditions in the jail but also establish accountability for what goes on behind those walls. But it’s not just local officials who can have an impact on the criminal justice system. Ballot measures allow an entire state to address issues like mass incarceration. In Oklahoma, we’re working on State Question 805, a common-sense criminal justice reform that will limit extreme sentences for nonviolent crimes and save Oklahoma taxpayers $186 million. Oklahoma hands down cruel and unfair sentences for minor crimes, leading to one of the highest incarceration rates in the country. An individual sentenced in the state served 33 years in prison for writing $400 worth of bad checks, and a mother was sentenced to 15 years for stealing basic necessities and children’s toys from a Walmart. State Question 805 will limit sentences like these that are out of proportion to the crimes. Reproductive Freedom  Since 2011, states have passed more than 460 abortion restrictions, eroding abortion access for far too many, disproportionately harming low-income people and people of color. With President Trump having promised only to nominate justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, if his current nominee is confirmed, the legal right to abortion will be in the gravest danger it has faced yet. As federal protections for reproductive rights become precariously uncertain, safeguarding this right at the state level has never been more urgent.  Montana stands out as a state with strong protections for reproductive freedom, especially in its geographic region, but that’s mostly because of its governor, as well as some important state supreme court precedents. The state legislature continually passes abortion restrictions like targeted regulations of abortion providers (TRAP laws) and abortion bans, but has been stopped by the governor’s veto pen. Without a governor who supports abortion rights, Montana could see severe restrictions on the five remaining abortion providers in Montana, which also serve patients from Idaho, the Dakotas, and Wyoming, where access is virtually non-existent due to restrictions. The risk is so high that the ACLU is dedicating significant resources to informing voters on what’s at stake in this race so they can make an informed decision.   Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, abortion could become illegal in several states, including Arizona. The Arizona House of Representatives, however, is very close to obtaining a majority that would protect abortion rights, so we’re engaging in two key state legislative races  — House Districts 20 and 23 — to mobilize voters on this issue. Additionally, since access to abortion turns not only on statewide legislation but also on prosecutorial discretion, we have raised abortion in the Maricopa County attorney race too. Should abortion be banned in the state, the Maricopa County attorney would have significant influence on whether to charge people with crimes for seeking or providing abortion care.  And in Colorado, we’re fighting back a ballot measure, Proposition 115, that would ban abortion later in pregnancy. Prop. 115 would make it a crime for doctors to provide abortion care starting at 22 weeks in pregnancy, robbing pregnant people of the ability to make their own personal medical decisions, taking into consideration their own personal situations. Prop. 115 is a one-size-fits-all mandate that fails to acknowledge every pregnancy is unique — and shows no compassion for what families face in unimaginably complicated circumstances. And it takes away the ability of doctors to provide the best medical care for their patients. Immigrants’ Rights Typically, the federal government shapes our policies on immigration. But they frequently also try to involve local law enforcement in their efforts to find, detain, and deport immigrants, splitting families and communities. This is the case for local sheriffs who are often asked to house detained people, including immigrants, and have the power to enter into agreements with federal immigration enforcement to deputize local police as immigration agents.  In the run-up to November 3, we’re focused on three specific sheriff races that have the ability to transform the quality of life for immigrant families. In Charleston, South Carolina, the next sheriff could end the city’s 287(g) agreement with federal immigration agencies, which wastes local resources to detain and deport immigrants on behalf of the federal government. And in Cobb and Gwinnett counties in Georgia, two of the most aggressive locations for local immigration enforcement, we’ve asked candidates if they’ll commit to both ending the 287(g) program and stopping the use of ICE detainers, which can extend a person’s detention beyond the authorized amount of time, allowing ICE to take them into custody and eventually deport them. In Gwinnett County alone, the county shared information with ICE on more than 5,000 immigrants in 2017, which accounted for one-fifth of all interactions nationwide that year. In Miami-Dade County, Florida — another area of ACLU electoral engagement — the mayor will appoint a new sheriff, so in this case, we’ve gotten involved in a mayoral race to let voters know about the candidates’ positions. But, the issues at stake are the same — treating immigrant communities justly and curtailing local collaboration with ICE. Racial Justice While our country remains in a moment of racial reckoning, there are states where voters can have a direct impact on racial justice in just a few weeks. Of course, many reforms to the criminal justice system, like State Question 805 in Oklahoma, could mean decreasing racial disparities in who gets charged and the length of their sentences. But these policies on the ballot go beyond criminal justice reform. This year, Nebraska voters can decide to reduce predatory payday loan interest rates, which average more than 400 percent. These payday loans, marketed as a short-term fix for those in financial stress, are actually designed to trap borrowers in a cycle of long-term debt. The consequences of payday lenders fall especially hard on communities of color, where payday lending stores are located in higher numbers than in other neighborhoods. It becomes incredibly hard for minority families to build wealth, save for the future, or have a safety net because dollars are systematically drained away. This ballot measure comes at a time when many Americans are devastated by the global health pandemic and the longstanding racial disparities it has exacerbated, leaving millions unable to meet their families’ basic needs. While many of these issues will take work to resolve, voting for this ballot measure will be a move in the right direction to help remedy economic and racial injustice.  In California, the most diverse state in the nation, voters can choose to support Proposition 16, which would bring affirmative action back to the state for the first time in decades. The current affirmative action ban means fewer and less profitable opportunities for women and communities of color. But this isn’t only about money and jobs — lives are at risk. Black, Latinx, and Native American people are dying disproportionately from COVID-19 because of the devastating consequences of decades of discrimination in education, housing, jobs, health care, and more. Affirmative action would help reduce and eliminate those harms by leveling the playing field, for instance, through expanding access to health care education to all communities. Research has shown that communities of color receive better health care from medical professionals of those communities. If passed, Proposition 16 will help bring equal opportunity to all Californians, increasing access to fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools for everyone. Make a Plan to Vote Of course, none of these policies will change if you don’t vote. So make a plan and recruit friends and family. For more on how to vote in your state, check out our Let People Vote tool. ——— Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., Anthony Romero, Executive Director, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004.  Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.   Paid for by the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. on behalf of the Committee to Advance Constitutional Values.   Authorized and paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, 212-549-2500, on behalf of Yes on 805, Inc.   Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc.; Anthony Romero, Registered Agent.  Authorized by Abortion Access for All.   Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, and authorized by Nebraskans for Responsible Lending.   Paid for by American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., ID #1259514, and authorized by Yes on 16, Opportunity for All Coalition, Sponsored by Civil Rights Organizations.

Published October 19, 2020 at 10:16AM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/2T9VTmV) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Photographer Josué Rivas on Indigenous Representation

Photographer Josué Rivas on Indigenous Representation

This week and in recent years, a growing number of states and cities across the country celebrated Indigenous Peoples’ Day. It comes as an important corrective after decades of celebrating the “discovery” of the Americas by Christopher Columbus each year. We know, of course, that no such discovery happened — what did happen was colonization, and centuries of subjugation, murder, disenfranchisement, and displacement of Native Americans. As we reflect on our history and on the stories that have been too often excluded, we consider the importance of not just what stories get told, but of who gets to tell them.  This week on At Liberty, we are joined by Josué Rivas, who helped us think through these questions. Rivas is a visual storyteller, educator, creative director, and self-described “Indigenous futurist.” He descended from the Mexica Otomi peoples. He aims “to challenge the mainstream narrative about Indigenous peoples” and to “be a visual messenger for those in the shadows of our society.” 

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/910743910

Published October 16, 2020 at 04:25PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3o8VWOm) via ACLU

[madisonacampbell]

Via the ACLU: Let Trans People Vote

Let Trans People Vote

Do you have a plan to cast your ballot on November 3rd or before during early voting? We’re all are asking this question, but for many transgender people it invokes an extra layer of questions and anxiety. Will I need to show ID? If so, can I get my name and gender marker changed on my ID in time?  Did I change my name on my voter registration? How should I dress? Will a poll worker embarrass me, out me, or challenge my identity? WIll I get harassed for being trans or some other reason? Transgender voters encounter a number of barriers that make exercising our right to vote complicated, intimidating and unnecessarily difficult. State ID laws have created a web of barriers for transgender residents to cast their ballot. There are around 378,450 voting-eligible transgender people across the country who do not have accurate IDs. And 81,000 transgender voters live in states with the strictest photo ID requirements.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/statuses/1234881082404765699

Trans people have to jump through lots of hoops to get updated identification that reflects who we are. Typically we have to submit a legal petition to state court and have a hearing in front of a judge. In some states we need background checks and to publish the name change in a newspaper, which costs money. We need to present documentation at all sorts of agencies to update our information, and changing gender markers can require a variety of burdensome medical certifications.  If that doesn’t sound complicated enough, this election has additional hurdles for transgender voters due to the coronavirus pandemic. Many state courts, DMVs, and social security offices closed, meaning trans people could not start their necessary legal filings or got stuck somewhere in the process. Now even with some offices reopening, huge backlogs and new protocols mean appointments are not available for months, leaving many trans people stuck in the lurch with mismatched documents heading into election day. Partly because many of us do not have stable, long-term housing, it can be challenging to keep our registration updated even under ordinary circumstances. Transgender people were twice as likely as the general U.S. population to report problems like not receiving an absentee ballot or being registered at the wrong address kept us from voting in the 2014 election.  These and other barriers do not impact all trans people equally. A 2015 survey found that Black transgender people were 3.5 times as likely as white transgender people to not be registered to vote because they feared anti-transgender harassment. IDs can cost money, and even if the ID is free the process of updating underlying documents can cost time and money which not all of us can afford to pay. Black and Indigenous transgender women are also more likely than other trans people to have been incarcerated, which sometimes leads to loss of voting rights.  As intimidating as these challenges may seem, trans people who are eligible to vote often do vote — in fact, we may vote in higher numbers than the general U.S. population. That may be because we know that our rights are on the line. It is illegal for poll workers to turn us away from voting because we are transgender. And the news is not all bad for transgender voters in this election. Expanded vote by mail access across the country due to COVID-19 may alleviate some of the threat of in-person intimidation, harassment, and questioning. If you plan to cast a vote by mail, make sure you check your voter registration status and fill out your ballot using the name you are registered under. Request and return your ballot as far in advance as possible, to avoid any last-minute problems. If you have questions about how to cast your ballot this election, check our voting resources or reach out for assistance. 

Let People Vote | American Civil Liberties Union

No one should have to choose between their vote and their health.

Here at the ACLU we will continue the fight to improve access to updated identification and remove barriers to exercising your right to vote. In the meantime, we hope everyone who is eligible will vote! We need all of our voices in this democracy to keep moving toward justice for all.

Checklist for Trans Voters

Check your voter registration status to make sure you are registered and your name and address are up to date.

See our ACLU Let People Vote guide for info on whether your state allows vote by mail, early voting, and other important info on how to cast your vote.

If you are voting by mail, make sure you fill out your ballot and sign using the name listed on your voter registration.

If you are voting in person, consider going with a friend in case you encounter harassment or need to document discrimination. You may want to plan extra time in case you encounter difficulties.

Call 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) if you encounter any problems while voting.

Published October 16, 2020 at 03:42PM via ACLU (https://ift.tt/3nVNj9D) via ACLU