Judicial Watch » ACLU

Judicial Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief for State Legislators in Support of Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

admin- — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:56:43 +0000

‘In passing HB 934, the legislature did no more than exercise its sound discretion and create a commonsense regulatory scheme to secure free and equal elections.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that on July 17, 2012, it filed an amicus curiae brief with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in support of HB 934, a voter identification measure signed into law by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett on March 14, 2012. The ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the law on behalf of various individuals, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and allied groups.

Judicial Watch jointly filed its brief with Pennsylvania attorney L. Theodore Hopp Jr. on behalf of Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalf and members of the Pennsylvania legislature who supported the bill. Rep. Metcalf was the author and driving force behind the bill. Nearly half of the members who supported the bill are signed on to the Judicial Watch amicus.

Pennsylvania House Bill 934 requires voters to produce a Pennsylvania driver’s license or another government-issued photo ID, such as a U.S. passport, military ID, or county/municipal employee ID when voting. The law requires the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to provide valid identification at no cost. The law further allows an individual without identification to cast a “provisional” ballot that will be counted if the identity of the voter can be indisputably ascertained within six business days of the election.

According to Judicial Watch’s amicus curiae brief:

In passing HB 934, the legislature did no more than exercise its sound discretion and create a commonsense regulatory scheme to secure free and equal elections. The legislature undoubtedly had such authority and used it accordingly.

In addition, because the legislature has the discretion to enact laws regulating elections, the courts must not overturn the policy choices of the legislative branch unless the legislature acts with gross abuse…In using its authority [the legislature] has not caused anyone to be disenfranchised, it has maintained and promoted free and equal elections, and it has not expanded upon the qualifications set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

A trial over the legal challenge to the voter ID law is scheduled to begin on July 25, 2012.

“Voter photo identification is a commonsense safeguard that will ensure that legitimately cast votes are not canceled out by the forces of corruption,” said Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe. “Implementation of HB 934 will restore integrity to Pennsylvania’s election process, because one fraudulently cast vote is one too many.”

“It is clear that leftist special interest groups are hostile to the idea of clean elections. To require a voter ID to vote is as sensible as requiring one to board an airplane, use a credit card, or open a Netflix account,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.”

DOJ Follows ACLU’s Lead, Sues State Over Immigration Law

akajas — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:30:16 +0000

The latest move by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to legally challenge another state’s immigration control law indicates that, under Obama, the agency has become the lap dog of the leftwing civil rights group at the helm of the open borders movement.For the second time in a year the DOJ and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have apparently colluded to bring down a state measure passed to curb the devastating toll of illegal immigration. Last year Team DOJ-ACLU took on Arizona’s law, which makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally, bans “sanctuary city” policies and allows local police to inquire about suspects’ immigration status.Judicial Watch uncovered DOJ documents that show the agency worked hand-in-hand with the ACLU in mounting their respective legal challenges to Arizona’s measure. The ACLU has flexed its muscle in related matters as well. A few months ago Homeland Security officials followed an ACLU order to suspend the scheduled deportation of an illegal immigrant in Los Angeles who’s working with the group to nix a program (Secure Communities) that requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database.This week the DOJ followed the ACLU’s footsteps in filing a lawsuit to block Alabama’s new immigration control law, which makes it a state crime to be an undocumented alien and also makes it illegal for them to work in the state. The measure also allows police to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally and makes it a crime to rent a house or apartment to an illegal alien.Though they were filed weeks apart, the ACLU and DOJ complaints contain incredibly similar wording and both issued like-minded press releases blasting Alabama’s law as unconstitutional and undermining the federal government’s exclusive immigration enforcement duties. The ACLU used more animated language in its press release, accusing Alabama of passing a “draconian anti-immigrant law” that sanctions “discriminatory and unconstitutional practices.”The DOJ accuses Alabama of crossing a constitutional line, asserting that the law will lead to “the harassment and detention of foreign visitors, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens who may not be able to readily prove their lawful status.” The feds also claim that the measure will burden children by demanding that students prove their lawful presence, which in turn, will discourage parents from enrolling them in school.This appears to be part of a broad movement by the administration to protect illegal immigrants until it figures out a way to grant them amnesty. Last spring the DOJ’s bloated civil rights division, which is headed by a renowned illegal immigrant advocate, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, created a secret group to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to curb illegal immigration. The undercover body is known as the National Origin Working Group and it holds special workshops dedicated to monitoring “anti-immigrant laws.”

Criminal Checks Present Hiring Barrier For Minorities

akajas — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:20:50 +0000

At the request of a leftwing civil rights group, the government agency that enforces employment discrimination is considering outlawing criminal background checks as a tool to screen job applicants because it presents a hiring barrier for minorities.It marks the latest collusion between the Obama Administration and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been deeply involved in dictating immigration policy. A few months ago Homeland Security officials suspended the scheduled deportation of an illegal immigrant at the ACLU’s request. Earlier in the year Judicial Watch uncovered Justice Department records that show the agency worked hand-in-hand with the ACLU in mounting their respective legal challenges to Arizona’s immigration control law.Now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee based on race, color, religion or sex, is considering changing a major policy at the ACLU’s request. It involves criminal background checks on job applicants, a growing practice among employers with security concerns.Because Hispanics and African Americans have higher rates of arrest and convictions than whites, they suffer discrimination at a disproportionate rate, according to the ACLU. This presents a barrier to hiring and promotion, the group claims, adding that 65 million Americans have a criminal record yet growing numbers of employers refuse to hire people with convictions. At the ACLU’s request the EEOC held a special meeting last week to focus on the economic, social and civil rights implications as the as the agency “considers updating its guidance on background checks.”Various experts testified that “people of color” are disproportionately affected by the criminal background checks, creating yet another barrier for those returning to their community from the criminal justice system. A Justice Department official who handles “urban affairs” pointed out that a disproportionate number of African Americans have criminal records yet they need to be able to compete for legitimate job opportunities.A college professor and civil rights attorney thanked the “new leadership” at the EEOC for bringing attention to a “profound civil rights challenge.” In a letter thanking EEOC commissioners, who are appointed by the president, for holding the meeting, the ACLU reminds the agency of a tragedy; “more than 850 reports from women and men around the country who have been refused or dismissed from employment because of their criminal record.” The ACLU also gives the commission “recommendations” to solve the matter.

ICE Halts Deportation At ACLU’s Request

akajas — Thu, 19 May 2011 15:11:18 +0000

In the latest collusion between the Obama Administration and the leftwing American Civil Liberties Union, Homeland Security officials have suspended the scheduled deportation of an illegal immigrant at the ACLU’s request.The move is part of a bigger plan to perhaps eliminate the federal program (Secure Communities) that identified the illegal alien in the first place. The influential open borders movement—which includes the ACLU—has aggressively pressured the administration to nix Secure Communities, which requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.But immigrant rights advocates insist the program is racist, has led to the removal of hard-working immigrants who contribute to society and has tragically separated families. They want the Obama Administration to get rid of it and that could very well happen as the president panders for votes in 2012. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General announced this week that it’s planning an investigation of Secure Communities.The probe will determine the extent to which the program is used to identify and remove dangerous criminal aliens from the United States, according to a news report of the inspector general’s plans. The IG will also examine cost and the accuracy of the data collection and determine if Secure Communities is being applied “equitably across communities.”Those who dare to read between the lines can probably see where this is going. The illegal immigrant whose deportation was abruptly halted by the government headlined an ACLU-sponsored press conference decrying Secure Communities. She was arrested earlier this year in Los Angeles after a domestic violence dispute and was identified as an illegal alien when the county jail forwarded her fingerprints to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).At the ACLU’s behest ICE conducted a “comprehensive review” of the illegal immigrant’s case and determined to “terminate the removal proceedings against her,” according to an agency statement published in a local newspaper. Immigration advocates used the case as an opportunity to chastise Secure Communities as a “destructive program” that endangers public safety because immigrants won’t cooperate with police out of fear of being deported.Interestingly, the elected sheriff who operates jails in Los Angeles and patrols a huge chunk of the sprawling county insists that Secure Communities works. In a piece published this week by the state’s largest newspaper, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca writes that many serious criminals have been deported. Prior to implementing Secure Communities a “growing number of criminal illegal immigrants who were taken into custody” were eventually released back into the community, according to Baca who has been sheriff since 1998.In the piece Baca offers several examples of violent illegal aliens who were removed from theU.S. thanks to Secure Communities. Among them is a felon who lived in the area despite three drug-trafficking convictions and six deportations and another who had been previously removed after getting convicted for killing a child in the late 1990s.Back to the unscrupulous collaboration between the Obama Administration and the ACLU; earlier this year Judicial Watch uncovered documents from the Department of Justice that show the agency worked hand-in-hand with the ACLU in mounting their respective legal challenges to Arizona’s immigration control law.

Obama Justice Department Colluded with ACLU to Attack Arizona’s SB 1070 According to Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch

admin- — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:11:19 +0000

ACLU Rep to DOJ Official: “Yes, a real pleasure to be on the same side.”

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — January 27, 2011Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today announced that it has received documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that show DOJ worked hand-in-hand with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in mounting their respective legal challenges to SB 1070, Arizona’s get-tough illegal immigration law. The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on June 17, 2010, include email exchanges between DOJ officials and ACLU staff.Included among the documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a July 27, 2010, email exchange between Lucas Guttentag, leader of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and the DOJ’s Edwin Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General:

2:15 pm: Ed
I left a voicemail earlier today about checking in once the district court rules. Would you be available then?
[Redacted statement] And from all of us, thank you again for your argument on behalf of the United States.
Lucas2:40 pm: Thanks Lucas. We should definitely check in once we hear. We’ll be huddling here as soon as we can. What is your thinking at this point on if/how you will proceed in various possible scenarios?
It was good to see you, even if only briefly, and to be on the same side for once! [Redacted statement] I have a feeling we might be seeing each other again on this case.
Ed6:14 pm: Thanks Ed. Yes, a real pleasure to be on the same side.
I think we will be strongly inclined to seek an immediate emergency injunction from the 9th Circuit…
Can you share your current thinking with regard to the various scenarios?
Best Lucas

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also include email exchanges between ACLU staff and Joshua Wilkenfeld, the Assistant U.S. Attorney who signed the government’s pleadings in the lawsuit, exchanged hearing transcripts and established opportunities to discuss the case. For example, the documents included this July 16, 2010, email from Guttentag to Wilkenfeld:

Josh
…Yes, look forward to talking. I’m getting a fuller briefing on yesterday’s hearing later this morning (Calif. time) and then I am tied up for a short while. Would it work for you to talk at about 4.00 or 4.30p Eastern? If it’s okay with you, I’d like to include two colleagues. By the way, we tried to order a transcript yesterday but understand the US Attorney’s office already did. Can we get a copy directly from you when it’s available?
All best,
Lucas

Wilkenfeld sent the transcript later that day.On May 17, 2010, a coalition of “civil rights groups,” including the ACLU, filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona over SB 1070. According to the ACLU’s press release announcing the lawsuit, this coalition included: “…the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) — a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.”On July 6, 2010, the Obama DOJ filed a lawsuit of its own, which has been described by Congressman Peter King (R-NY) as a “cut and paste” version of the ACLU lawsuit.“It is one thing to share the ACLU’s disrespect for the rule of law but it is quite another to collude with the organization on a prosecutorial strategy against the State of Arizona. Frankly, these new documents show it is hard to tell where the ACLU ends and the Justice Department begins,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama Justice Department is supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan law enforcement agency. Many Americans will be disturbed, though maybe not surprised, to find that Eric Holder’s Justice Department is colluding with one of the most leftist organizations in the nation. We know whose ‘side’ this Justice Department is on when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws.”(Judicial Watch represents Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, in the Obama administration’s lawsuit challenging the Arizona law.)