News & Commentary

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.

Just a week ago, hundreds of Michigan men and women came out for the HANDS OFF! Rally for Reproductive Justice. Not only was it truly inspiring, it was liberating to turn heads in my “Vagina” t-shirt, demonstrate that I value autonomy over my own body via some not-so-coordinated dance moves, and to be one amongst a huge community of people who rallied and danced in solidarity. While I took pride in my own participation, dancing alone would not have been as fun, and the resounding echo of “vagina” that reverberated around the halls of the Capitol would definitely have been less powerful if there weren’t so many other voices there to chant with me. It is so important to keep in mind that we are one of many voices, and while we not only have the right to exercise our ability to make our individual voices heard, we also rely on each other to show up at the polls and vote.

In order for this to be a true democracy, every eligible American must be able to vote. So why are states are making it harder for people to vote as legislatures pass voter suppression laws, putting roadblocks in front of our most fundamental constitutional right? In his radio address this week, Jack Lessenberry examines the issue of voter suppression laws in Michigan. Throughout American history, we have had to fight to ensure that no one is excluded from participating in our democracy. From poll taxes to literacy tests, regressive laws have sought to eliminate “undesirable” voices from the electorate: African-Americans, women, immigrants, the elderly and young people. Even after all the battles we've fought to gain access to the polls, as Lessenberry points out, fifty-five percent of registered voters didn't vote in our state. That's just registered voters: when you consider the number of people who haven't registered, the numbers grow even grimmer. "...it’s easy to beat up on people for not voting," Lessenberry points out, "but the fact is that we don’t make voting as easy as we could -- and there are efforts underway to make voting harder still." Instead of addressing some of the root causes of low voter turnout and encouraging all to participate in our democracy, lawmakers nationwide seem more interested in reinstating barriers along every step of the process, packaged as voter ID laws, restrictions to voter registration and cuts to early voting. We need to remind our elected officials that although the right to vote is often taken for granted, it is something that we can never afford to forget. After all, they should be seeking ways to encourage more Americans to vote, not inventing reasons to deny voters the ability to cast their ballots. Key News and Documents  Read More | Know Your Voting Rights Learn More | Voter Suppression

Voting is the fundamental right that our Republic is based on: the imbuement of individuals with the power to rule over others (within fixed time limits, of course).  That essential right hit a pot-hole yesterday, when the Michigan Senate approved a bill that would require photo ID for voter registration. The Detroit News reports the bill passed along close-to-party lines, with all Democrats voting in opposition with the exception of Sen. Bert Johnson (D-Detroit.

For the last week, I’ve been posting my New Year’s wishes on my Facebook page. I only got to #4 when I was overrun by comments of unrelenting skepticism and shock, albeit affectionate, from my friends. What was my apparently outrageous hope? I wished that Michigan's State Supreme Court becomes a national model whose every decision embodies intellectual integrity and wisdom. While I often get many ‘likes’ on my posts, for this I received 14 comments in just a few short hours. One friend wrote: “Sorry Kary, there's about as much chance as that happening as Jesse Jackson being invited to Rush Limbaugh's next wedding.”  Another wrote: “If Supreme Court justices could fly….” And one even asked what I was smoking. Okay, I concede that this particular New Year’s wish is likely not terribly realistic in the short term and I do appreciate the humor. Several justices on Michigan’s Supreme Court have fought publicly and some of their opinions have garnered national attention for their surprising bitterness.  Much of the problem, in my view, results from our system of electing judges rather than allowing judicial appointments. This exacerbates partisanship, results in the over-simplification of complex issues during campaigns, and leads to the ever-present need to raise money. This is only one of the significant challenges ahead. We must keep pressing towards the way things should be and not resign ourselves to the status quo. We should articulate goals and aspirations for which there can be consensus as the necessary first step to making it happen. Whether one hoped for the dismantling of South African apartheid, the election of this country’s first black president, the creation of a safety net in the form of social security for the elderly, or a computer in every house – it all starts with ambition and then the generating of the political will and resources to make it happen. I believe in the ingenuity of Michiganders to dream big. What big dream do you have this year?

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