News & Commentary

Politicians in Michigan are at it again – pushing a revised version of the sweeping anti-abortion bill that could threaten to close women’s health care centers. We beat back this bill before and now it is urgent these state lawmakers hear from us once more. They silenced female legislators from speaking out in opposition to this bill. They prevented over 90 women from testifying against legislation that will directly affect them. They are ramming this bill through at the last possible moment in this year’s legislative session, despite public outcry.  And worse, today legislators locked out members of the public, including the ACLU of Michigan’s own legislative director and others who wanted to advocate against the bill.

A lame-duck session of the Michigan Legislature occurs whenever one of the chambers meets after its legislative successors are elected, but before their terms begin. This is the last opportunity for representatives to get priority legislation passed, which usually makes for a hectic, short period of time where anything can happen. This year, the Michigan House of Representatives is in lame-duck (Nov. 7th-Dec 31st), with 28 new representatives on their way to Lansing for the new term. Stay tuned for a profile of each new member in a future Capitol Watchdog post. But for now, here's some lame-duck legislation that we're watching that you should know about:

In the dreams of law enforcement, police are able to check instantly DNA at a crime scene against a vast, complete catalog of individuals to solve crimes quickly and cleanly. The only problem is that kind of invasion of privacy would only happen in a science fiction movie, right? For several years, law enforcement and legislatures have toyed with the idea of collecting and permanently storing DNA samples from Americans who have not been convicted of any crime, despite concerns about government abuse, practicality and unconstitutionality, . After watching too many episodes of CSI, misguided Michigan lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 1345 and 1346, which would create a forensic DNA database that would store the DNA of anyone arrested (not convicted!) for a felony. This legislation is a bad, bad idea. We oppose this legislation for many reasons, starting with the fact it would legislate an invasion of innocent people's privacy and an intolerable violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Our Facebook newsfeeds are full of friends posting a cut-and-paste status update that claims to protect users' privacy and copyright from the company. It's awesome to see how many people care about their privacy rights. So does posting a notice on your Facebook page protect your privacy?  Short answer: Nope. Why not? When you created a user profile on Facebook, you agreed to the company's terms of service. By using the service, you've already agreed to allow Facebook to use your intellectual property (your updates, photos, and other stuff). Specifically, you still retain your copyright, but you grant Facebook a license to use and display that content until you delete it. Basically, it's like you signed a contract: you can't change that contract with a status update.  But I care about my privacy! What can I do? Four things: 

Whether and when to have children is about the most deeply personal and intimate decision a person can make. When we chose to start a family many years ago, my husband and I discussed our own health and energy and the state of our relationship and our finances. As people of faith and stewards of God’s creation, we talked about religious and moral considerations. While we spoke about these personal, intimate questions, I didn’t expect my boss to insist on weighing in on that discussion. But that’s what's happening to some employees. Some business owners are claiming that including birth control in their employees’ health insurance benefits in compliance with the Affordable Care Act would violate their religious freedom – even when their employees do not share their beliefs. This refusal has real consequences. After a series of miscarriages, my aunt and uncle made the difficult decision to use birth control despite the position of their church on the issue. After being cautioned about the potentially dire consequences of another pregnancy, my aunt recognized that contraception was essential to her continued health. I do not think most people would say her boss had a right to participate in that discussion. Contraception is a key part of women’s health care. Excluding it from health insurance coverage burdens women alone with its excessive cost, despite the positive impact family planning has on the health and financial security of both mother and family. As in my aunt’s case, contraception can protect a woman’s life. Sometimes it is prescribed for acne, migraines, or endometriosis – will it be excluded for those purposes, too? As a person of faith, it is offensive to me that some employers believe that their religious faith and beliefs deserve greater consideration than their employees. Why should one set of beliefs prevail over another? If employers are allowed to refuse contraception, what will be the limit of employer-driven exclusions? Some religious faiths refuse blood transfusions: would they be permitted to refuse to cover employees' lifesaving health needs? Could a religious teetotaler refuse to cover illnesses or injuries arising out of alcohol use? Employees don't give up their personal morals when taking a job. They are entitled to make their own health care decisions according to their own beliefs and values. That's the law: the Affordable Care Act says that comprehensive health insurance must include contraception. Making sure this law is followed doesn't violate employer's religious freedoms, it simply honors the religious beliefs and health decisions of individual employees and their families.

This election year, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission had its eye on much more than what's in your glass. Last week, the ACLU of Michigan challenged a blatantly unconstitutional rule that banned bar and restaurant owners from posting signs in favor of political candidates or parties.   What was the penalty for expressing their opinion in their own business? Anywhere from a $300 fine to the loss of their liquor license, which would practically shut their business down for good simply for displaying a sign. Martin and Keith own the Aut Bar, a popular restaurant and bar in Ann Arbor. For 17 years, they've built a business that is a positive and affirming gathering place for the gay community. People come to the bar not only to get a beer and a bite to eat, but also to have a place to network and share information on political decisions that impact their families. That's why they were shocked to find out their business could be endangered just because they wanted to post signs in favor of candidates in the upcoming November election. Just like Martin says, "it’s absurd that we are not able to display political candidate signs and must remain silent on these important issues simply because we serve alcohol." After all, regulations on one aspect of a business shouldn't be manipulated to bully and censor the political speech of their owners. Today, we're happy to announce that after hearing from us, the Liquor Control Commission has decided to respect free speech and stop enforcing this rule to allow business owners like Martin and Keith to speak up in the 2 weeks leading up to the election.  By Genevieve Scott, Cooperating Attorney

DETROIT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan applauded the Michigan Liquor Control Commission’s decision today to stop enforcing its rule barring businesses with liquor licenses from displaying election signs. The ACLU of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit last week on behalf the Aut Bar, a popular restaurant and bar in Ann Arbor, arguing that the rule violated the First Amendment. “With the election just two weeks away, we are pleased that the Liquor Control Commission has agreed to stop enforcing an archaic rule that violated the free speech rights of Michigan bar and restaurant owners for more than 50 years,” said Michael J. Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan legal director. “As of today, restaurant, bars and liquor store owners throughout the state are free to display election signs on their own property without fear of being fined or losing their liquor license.” In its lawsuit, the ACLU of Michigan argued that the MLCC rule violated the First Amendment by denying individuals who own businesses that sell alcohol their fundamental right to express their views about political candidates while allowing signs on virtually any other topic -- including commercial signs, signs about ballot initiatives and advocacy signs addressing social issues. In addition to agreeing to stop enforcing the rule, the MLCC has agreed to expedite the process to officially rescind the no-election-signs rule, which took effect in 1954. Before the ACLU case was filed, the penalty for violating the rule ranged from a $300 fine to loss of a liquor license. Several weeks ago, Aut Bar owner Martin Contreras posted signs in front of his business supporting John Dingell for Congress and Carole Kuhnke for Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge. However, after learning about the no-election-signs rule and consulting with the Liquor Control Commission staff, he removed the signs. In light of this decision, the signs will be posted again immediately. “When my partner and I opened the Aut Bar 17 years ago we wanted to open a positive and affirming gathering place for the men and women of the gay community, their families and friends,” said Contreras at the time the lawsuit was filed. “Our goal was not only to provide great food, but also a safe place for networking and information sharing especially surrounding political decisions that impact our families." In addition to Steinberg, Contreras and the Aut Bar are represented by ACLU Cooperating Attorney Genevieve E. Scott.

The last few months, I have spoken with dozens of kids in Highland Park, ranging in age from eight to sixteen. Like kids everywhere, they have hopes and dreams of going to college, having successful careers and giving back to their community.But unlike students in other districts, these kids have been short-changed. They don’t have up-to-date textbooks and, in many cases, they aren't given books at all. They certainly don’t have materials to take home and study after school.These students struggle to learn in schools with broken windows, leaky ceilings and no heat in the winter. I've seen this tragedy first hand, in the faces of parents and students who are afraid of what the future holds for their education.Reporters from CNN heard about the conditions from us and came out to Highland Park to see conditions for themselves.After interviewing teachers, students, parents and our executive director, what kind of a picture did they get about what's happening to education in our state? Check out the video to find out.

Let’s face it: the emotions on both sides of the emergency manager law controversy have been extreme. Public Act 4 of 2011 allows the Governor to appoint individuals who can suspend the authority of mayors and city councils and administer and legislate in their place. On the one hand, some supporters of this law warn of economic catastrophe of epic proportions if emergency managers are not allowed to save the day. On the other hand, some opponents of the law contend that the powers of emergency managers are so broad that a more appropriate name for Public Act 4 is “The Emergency Dictator Law.” After a notorious, hard-fought court battle, Michigan’s voters will, in November, have a chance to decide with their ballots whether Public Act 4 is retained or scrapped. At the ACLU of Michigan, we don’t claim to be experts in economics or municipal budget issues. Whether emergency managers can effectively rescue failing economies is not a debate that we enter. We are however charged with protecting the civil rights of Michigan’s people, and it appeared to us that certain rights to representative democracy have been affected by the emergency manager law. We were also concerned about repeated accusations of racial bias in the law’s implementation. To learn more, we hit the streets to speak directly with elected officials, public employees, community activists, everyday citizens and even emergency managers themselves. The product of those conversations and related research is a full report titled: “Unelected & Unaccountable: Emergency Managers and Public Act 4’s Threat to Representative Democracy.” So what are our conclusions after talking with folks? Emergency managers are a threat to representative democracy for the simple reason that they are not elected but nevertheless possess governmental authority intended for persons who were elected.