News & Commentary

This week we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a heroic piece of legislation that marked a giant step toward transforming our Constitution's democratic values into political reality.Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, the vast majority of Americans have the right to cast their vote on Election Day. But this doesn't mean we can rest easy.First, we need to exercise our right to vote. This Tuesday is Election Day for the Michigan primaries. Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. To find out where you should vote and who will be on your ballot, visit the Voter Information Center online at https://webapps.sos.state.mi.us/mivote/.Second, know your rights at the polls. You will be asked for photo identification when you show up to vote, but if you don't have ID you cannot be turned away! Voters without ID may simply sign a form stating that they do not have their ID with them. The procedure is simple, and your ballot will be counted along with all the others.Third, support the ACLU as we continue to protect the right to vote. Shortly before the 2008 election, the ACLU went to federal court to stop the Michigan Secretary of State from unlawfully disenfranchising thousands of voters.In direct violation of federal law, the Secretary of State was purging eligible Michigan voters from the rolls when their registration cards were not delivered properly by the postal service or if they applied for an out-of-state driver's license.Students and poor people were the most likely voters to be affected.In a major voting rights victory, a federal judge ordered that these wrongfully disenfranchised voters be restored to the rolls before the 2008 election.This summer, after nearly two years of litigation, the Secretary of State finally agreed to halt this unlawful practice.By Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney

Officers Krupinski, Lucy, Prater, Robinson, Skender and Woods knew they were choosing to put themselves on the line to protect the public when they first decided to join the Detroit Police Department.However, for the past two years they have also put themselves on the line to ensure that no other officer would be forced to choose between their career and their family.

In last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, tempers flared as anti-choice organizations voiced their support a controversial bill. Senator Kuipers’ Senate Bill 1283 would add language to the state’s Public Health Code, essentially asking medical providers to use their most technologically advanced ultrasound machines for abortion procedures. Specifically, there was expressed outrage that organizations not supporting the bill did not meet the supporting organizations’ verbal presence in live testimony. At the height of this apparent disappointment, one senator took the written testimony submitted by the ACLU of Michigan, crumbled it to the size of a baseball, and threw it across the table. As I sat there observing, I wondered, “was this an indication of frustration or was this merely a stunt to provoke those that did not wish to speak?” Sometimes silence can be so loud. The issue is not that organizations not supporting the bill simply did not speak up because they had nothing to say. The issue, rather, is why. In essence, both sides of abortion debates both have the same goal—saving lives. The heart of the matter, however, is lost in the details including bills such as Senator Kuipers’. What needs to be understood is that saving lives starts before a woman comes to the crossroads of considering terminating her pregnancy. Saving lives starts with access to resources and education. Saving lives really begins with reducing unplanned pregnancies. Putting resources into preventing unplanned pregnancies could not only reduce the number of abortions, but planned pregnancies can decrease infant mortality and teenage pregnancies. Comprehensive sex education plays a role by offering the best and most responsible information for teens to make informed decisions when it comes to sexual activity. Comprehensive sex education probably does not encourage teenage sex no more than abstinence-only education has discouraged teen sex. If teens do decide to engage in sexual activity, it would be in their best interest and society’s best interest to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as a number of other uninvited consequences like sexually transmitted infections (STI). Resources should also be targeted towards state programs such as Plan First!, a Medicaid-waiver program, that helps increase access to low-income women for family planning services. These services include contraception, STI treatment, and other related medical care. This is especially important for women who are uninsured or under-insured due to unemployment or employers not offering medical benefits. Programs targeted towards preventing unplanned pregnancy also help reduce infant mortality. By ensuring that women have healthy planned pregnancies, the rates of infant mortality are greatly reduced. This is an especially crucial public health issue here in Michigan where rates of infant mortality have begun to rise in the metro Detroit area in the past few years. Bills such as Senator Kuipers’ do not truly address the serious issues of abortion and unplanned pregnancy in Michigan. Instead, statutory amendments like this just flare up continuing political debates focused on the wrong issues. Requiring abortion providers to use the “most technologically advanced ultrasound equipment available at that location” comes off as redundant and bypasses the crucial steps really needed to address abortion and unplanned pregnancies. This week, the bill is making another appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee for testimony. For the greater goal of reducing unplanned pregnancies, I hope our legislators really hear what is being said...from both supporters AND opposition.

Basic eighth-grade civics tells us legislators write the laws and police enforce them. But what happens when the police simply make up laws to punish people who question their authority or stand up for their rights? Enter Phil Letten, Ken Anderson, and two lawsuits the ACLU is filing on their behalf to protect citizens from the police state.

On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for juvenile offenders who haven’t committed homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. This is very good news for children in our country. The 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, recognized that such sentences violate the 8th amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but Michigan has to take the next step and appoint a special parole board to reevaluate the cases of juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If we’ve learned anything from this decision, it is that at the very least, children deserve a second chance. The Supreme Court decision goes a long way toward aligning legal opinion in the United States with the rest of the world. The Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly prohibits life without parole for juveniles under eighteen. The Convention has been signed and ratified by every country with the exception of the United States and Somalia. But in my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough. Justice Kennedy acknowledges specifically, in writing the opinion, that as compared to adults, juveniles have a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility” and their characters are “not as well formed.” He writes that while a juvenile is not absolved of responsibility of his actions, his transgressions are “not as morally reprehensible as those of an adult.” And he goes on to point out that as a punishment, life without parole “the second most severe penalty permitted by law,” is especially harsh for a juvenile offender, who will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender. Kennedy seems to be arguing that juveniles must be considered differently than adults. Following his line of this reasoning, juvenile life without parole should be unconstitutional on the face of it, even for homicide. Responding sarcastically to Justice Thomas’s dissent in the case, and addressing in general the injustice of harsh sentencing for youthful offenders and evolving standards, Justice Kennedy had this to say:

On my first day at work at ACLU, I was horrified to discover that right now there are over 300 children, or inmates who were children when they were incarcerated, serving life sentences in Michigan prisons with no chance of parole.Life without parole is a harsh penalty, justifiable when a serious crime has been committed, as justice meted out, as an effort at deterrence and as a way to keep law-abiding citizens safe.But each year in the United States, children as young as 13 years old are sentenced to life in prison with no hope of parole. This is hard to justify for any reason, especially in light of the fact that society has traditionally recognized that children deserve special protection because, distinct from adults, they are not yet fully formed and therefore vulnerable.In most nations it is accepted that children are different from adults and not accountable in the same way to strict standards of liability for criminal behavior.Scientific studies confirm that children’s brains are not yet fully developed, and that children are, in many cases, not able to reason like adults. The United States is the only nation that allows life without parole for juvenile offenders.In Michigan, the laws are particularly punishing and judges have very little discretion about sentencing.If you are 17 or older, you will automatically be tried as an adult.If you are 14, 15 or 16, the prosecutor, not the judge, determines whether your case will be heard in the juvenile justice system, where the focus is on teaching and rehabilitation-- because they are dealing with children-- or if you will be sent directly to the adult criminal system, where a life sentence without parole is mandatory for a first degree felony conviction, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of how old you are.And if you happen to be the 14-year-old along for the ride with the guy who pulled the trigger, you could get the same sentence.Under these rules, children as young as 14 are incomprehensibly expected to be able to understand the charges against them and navigate a complicated legal system, often with inadequate legal representation. And if they are convicted, they are housed with adult prisoners, with few services and very little protection.Just like that the door slams shut on these kids and they are condemned to living entire lives behind bars with no second chances, no appeal.The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. ACLU of Michigan is advocating in Lansing to change these cruel laws. Presently, there is a package of bills before the state House (HB594, HB4595, HB4596, HB4518).You can help by calling your legislators and asking them to support legislation that prohibits nonparolable life sentences for minors.By Katie Jacob, journalism student at Oakland University and will intern with the ACLU of Michigan throughout the summer.

For some parents, the first time their children begin dressing themselves is a stressful, embarrassing or frustrating experience. After all, how exactly do you explain to a kindergartner that a tutu, moccasins and a bathing suit just won't cut it in the midst of a Michigan winter?But for Stacy Fry, the day her 6-year-old daughter Ehlena shooed her out of her room so that she could dress herself was one of her proudest moments.Ehlena has cerebral palsy, and for years she has been unable to perform on her own many of the day-to-day functions that we take for granted.She could not open doors, turn on lights or even go to the bathroom without assistance. But things began to change in October when she was partnered with Wonder, a specially trained, certified mobility assistance dog. Since Wonder came along, Ehlena has continued to become more and more self-reliant.In order to cultivate this bond, it is critical that Ehlena and Wonder work together throughout the entire day. It was therefore very disruptive when Ehlena's school initially prohibited Wonder from joining her in the classroom.Over the past few months, the ACLU of Michigan advocated on behalf of the Frys to gain access to the classroom for Wonder. Last week, Wonder finally accompanied Ehlena to school. As Stacy explained, allowing Wonder and Ehlena to continue their work together uninterrupted will help her daughter "become more confident and independent."As ACLU attorneys, we often take cases that enable our clients to regain their voice and to be heard in a meaningful way. This is one of my favorite parts of my job.In this instance, however, I feel privileged to have participated in something that went even further. For 20 years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has held out the promise that individuals with disabilities are guaranteed the same rights and access as everyone else.As noted by the National Council on Disability in their 2007 report to the White House, the Act's goal of promoting full community participation can only be achieved by "eliminating the perception that people with disability are a wholly separate group that exists functionally, practically and conceptually apart from the rest of the population."Enabling students with disabilities to exercise their independence and remain in a general school setting is at the core of the ADA's purpose, as students like Ehlena teach all the other children in the classroom that individuals with disabilities can, and do, live lives that are completely integrated with the rest of the population.In this way, allowing Wonder to accompany Ehlena to school is not just about this moment. It is not just about this week, or even her entire kindergarten experience.Ehlena's relationship with Wonder, the autonomy that he allows her to gain, the power that he allows her to wield over her own life, will benefit her well beyond the school house doors.It is not an exaggeration to say that Ehlena's growing self-sufficiency will have a significant impact on the rest of her life. And so I take great pride in the fact that the ACLU could be a part of getting Wonder into the classroom. Even if it means that Ehlena's self-selected outfit may soon include a tutu.