This op-ed was originally published by TIME Magazine and can be read in full here.

On Jan. 6, 2021, millions watched, horrified, as agitators hellbent on overturning the election results and disenfranchising Black and Brown voters staged an insurrection on the Capitol, fueled by demonstrably false allegations of voter fraud. While there are clear problems with our democracy and voting systems that must be fixed, these issues don’t arise from voter fraud. They are instead the legacy problems of our republic: systematic efforts to erect voting barriers and discriminate against voters of color for political gain. The Biden administration has a real opportunity to restore faith in our democracy and move us closer to an electoral system representative of all Americans.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision and the halting of preclearance requirements have emboldened states and localities to enact discriminatory voting laws without the Department of Justice’s oversight, resulting in an increase in racially discriminatory laws that suppress the vote. And right now, after record voter turnout in 2020 and the electoral defeat of Donald Trump, states across the country are generating a new wave of such legislation that can be passed without crucial federal protections.

This latest assault on our democracy must be met with robust action and widespread vigilance, and the Biden administration has tools at its disposal. The Biden administration must work with Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to root out voting barriers built to discriminate against voters of color. Congressional leaders named this legislation in honor of the late civil rights legend, but the real honor to his memory would be the bill’s enactment.

More immediately, the ACLU will call on the incoming U.S. attorney general to designate an assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) in each of the 94 U.S. attorney offices across the country to help ensure compliance with federal voting laws. This cadre of Justice Department lawyers would augment the force of the team of attorneys in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C. The severity of the challenge demands a major response. After the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft required each U.S. attorney to appoint an AUSA as a point person on anti-terrorism. Jan. 6 and the broader, ongoing anti-voter actions are an attack on our democracy, and we must respond forcefully now too. These AUSA designations would be a clear signal from the Biden administration that it takes the threat of voter suppression as a serious, systematic issue for our democracy.

While tearing down barriers to the ballot, the Biden administration should also ensure all eligible Americans in their custody are able to exercise their right to vote and provide voter-registration information and services as part of release. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) should take affirmative steps to ensure eligible voters are not being stripped of their rights because they are incarcerated. Stripping the right to vote from and limiting voting opportunities for people in the criminal justice system is directly rooted in the suffocating racism of the Jim Crow era and began as a direct blowback from the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to end slavery and enfranchise Black men.

The 2020 election proved that racism-fueled voter suppression is alive and well. The deep racist, historical roots of targeting voters of color have persisted and grown; indeed, even a deadly pandemic provided no reprieve in the assault on voting rights. Instead, the opponents of voting rights have further proved their unrelenting desire to discount the ability of people of color to choose their elected officials, vying instead for a corrupted system in which politicians choose their voters. As John Lewis said in an op-ed published after his death, “The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society.” We must empower Americans to vote and, by doing so, restore faith in our democracy.

I have never had an ID that accurately reflects my gender. The closest I have come to achieving this was when I received my New York City municipal ID (IDNYC). Unlike my state ID, my city ID does not have any gender listed. When applying for my city ID there were four options: M, F, X, and not designated. I was given the autonomy to choose the gender marker that was best for me, and I did not have to provide a reason or any medical documentation for my choice. As a non-binary person, being able to remove gender entirely from an ID gave me a sense of safety and comfort that I hadn’t previously experienced with other identification documents. I felt relief that when showing my city ID, it wouldn’t “confirm” anyone’s assumptions or prompt any questions about my gender.

However, I cannot use my city ID as proof of identity outside of New York City, and even within the city, there are many circumstances in which I must show my state ID instead, such as checking into an airport or making an age-restricted purchase. Whenever I present my state ID, I have to prepare myself for someone to look at my gender marker and make assumptions about who I am and how to refer to me, and when this happens, my gender is never respected, affirmed, or even seen.

The anxiety I feel in these situations is not uncommon among trans and non-binary people. The National Center for Transgender Equality reported that 40 percent of trans people who presented identification that did not match their perceived gender experienced harassment, 15 percent were asked to leave the premesis, and 3 percent were assaulted. The reality is that trans or non-binary people often experience discrimination related to our identification documents, which leads to us avoiding situations in which we need to show someone an ID for fear of violence.

In recognition of the barriers that trans and non-binary people face related to identitifcation documents, cities and states across the country are recognizing the need for more expansive ID options. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have an option for an “X” gender marker on their IDs, and many allow for self-attestation of one’s gender without documentation from a medical provider. On the local level, some municipalities include a non-binary designation as an option, and others have an option to not list any gender on their IDs. Notably, municipal IDs offered in Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco, California; Little Rock, Arkansas; Poughkeepsie, New York; and Detroit, Michigan do not ask applicants for their gender at all. These cities and states have demonstrated that IDs can function without issue with an X gender marker or without any gender designation.

But I shouldn’t feel limited in where I can live as a non-binary person. I should be able to easily access identification documents that affirm my gender and safety anywhere in the United States.

The ACLU is asking the Biden-Harris administration to issue an executive order that allows for self-attestation of gender when applying for federal identification documents and creates an “X” designation for those who do not want an “M” or “F” gender marker or do not wish to disclose their gender. In addition to the executive order, the ACLU also encourages federal agencies to re-evaluate which identification documents must require gender markers due to national or international standards, and to remove gender markers from being displayed on IDs whenever possible. The proposed executive order would help more trans and non-binary people gain access to IDs that affirm their gender, and would strengthen advocacy for the removal of gender designations on identification documents altogether. Trans and non-binary people know what is safest for us and our individual situations, and should be able to determine if we want to include a gender marker on our IDs at all.

Trans and non-binary people aren’t the only ones who will benefit from these changes. Many gender non-conforming people experience violence if the gender listed on their ID does not match their percieved gender, and some intersex people do not have access to affirming or accurate identification documents. Additionally, Black women are often masculinized and questioned about their gender due to anti-Black and misogynistic stereotypes, and are at a higher risk of harassment if their IDs are perceived as inaccurate. We must keep in mind that more expansive gender designation options on IDs, including those that forgo gender markers entirely, will have positive implications beyond trans and non-binary communities. We all have a stake in protecting each other from the violence that can result from identification documents, and in changing the policies and practices that harm those who are most marginalized in our communities.

We should advocate for gender designation options that grant people as much autonomy, privacy, and safety as possible, and recognize that sometimes the best option is no gender marker at all.

Imagine you’ve forgotten once again the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee, so you do a quick Google image search of “gorilla.” But instead of finding images of adorable animals, photos of a Black couple pop up.

Is this just a glitch in the algorithm? Or, is Google an ad company, not an information company, that’s replicating the discrimination of the world it operates in? How can this discrimination be addressed and who is accountable for it?

“These platforms are encoded with racism,” says UCLA professor and best-selling author of Algorithms of Oppression, Dr. Safiya Noble. “The logic is racist and sexist because it would allow for these kinds of false, misleading, kinds of results to come to the fore…There are unfortunately thousands of examples now of harm that comes from algorithmic discrimination.”

On At Liberty this week, Dr. Noble joined us to discuss what she calls “algorithmic oppression,” and what needs to be done to end this kind of bias and dismantle systemic racism in software, predictive analytics, search platforms, surveillance systems, and other technologies.

Google This: Algorithmic Oppression

Google This: Algorithmic Oppression

Imagine you’ve forgotten once again the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee, so you do a quick Google image search of “gorilla.” But instead of finding images of adorable banana-obsessed animals, photos of a Black couple pop up. 

Imagine you’ve forgotten once again the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee, so you do a quick Google image search of “gorilla.” But instead of finding images of adorable banana-obsessed animals, photos of a Black couple pop up. 

Listen to this episode