News & Commentary

By Julie Ebenstein, Staff Attorney, ACLU Voting Rights Project

On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his support for restoring voting rights to citizens who have committed a felony after they serve their terms in prison, complete parole or probation, and pay any restitution fines. While the ACLU believes rights should automatically be restored upon release from prison and being too poor to pay fines shouldn't leave you without a voice in our democracy, this is an important step in the right direction.

The federal government has rightfully acknowledged how post-Civil War era criminal disfranchisement laws intended to suppress the voting rights of African Americans "defy the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guide our criminal justice policies."

This also isn't a problem that only affects a few people. If the more than 5.8 million disenfranchised Americans lived in a state of their own, that state would have 10 votes in the electoral college.

"The

"Ind

They each paid $55,000 for a ride by air and sea to a fresh chance in the Americas. They were captured within hours of their arrival in South Florida and served as witnesses for the F.B.I. in the investigation of their smugglers, cooperation that the men were led to believe would work in their favor as their cases made their way through immigration courts.
Three years later, they are still waiting for their cases to be resolved."

By Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU Washington Legislative Office
Note: This blog post originally appeared on the National ACLU Blog of Rights. That post can be found here.

The Department of Justice and Department of Education announced today what we have known to be true for a long time: yes, race discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.

At an event with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Departments jointly announced the release of this long awaitedfederal school discipline guidance. Secretary Duncan stated:
Positive discipline policies can help create safer learning environments without relying heavily on suspensions and expulsions. Schools also must understand their civil rights obligations and avoid unfair disciplinary practices.

By Dara Lind

This was originally posted on America's Voice.

We know that House Republicans are in denial about the human cost of immigration enforcement and massive deportations. That's why they'd rather kick immigrant families out of their offices than face up to the true consequences of enforcement-only policies. This week, two new developments make it clear that the denial runs deep: Congress isn't even willing to acknowledge the financial cost that enforcement is imposing right now on state and local governments, and the SAFE To Harass Act would (unsurprisingly) just make the problem worse.

Immigration enforcement always ends up being more costly to state and local governments than they ever imagine. Alabama's law HB 56 cost an estimated $11 billion to the state's economy.

Benj

By Heather L. Weaver, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Yesterday, a district court ruled that the federal government may no longer display a 43-foot Latin cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California. The Court's order, which prohibits the government from "displaying or continuing to allow the display of the current cross on federal land as part of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial," follows a 2011 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that the display violates the fundamental principles underlying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties brought this case on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, the oldest veterans' organization in the country, and other plaintiffs because we believe that government war memorials should honor veterans of all faiths, as well as those of no faith. The Constitution requires no less, and a gigantic, 43-foot Latin cross doesn't come close. As the Court of Appeals explained, "The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion. It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal. To many non-Christian veterans, this claim of universality is alienating."

“T