At last week’s House Education and Labor Committee hearing on ENDA, witness Camille Olsen, an attorney who represents employers, raised several questions about what she characterized as ambiguities in the bill. Among the points Olson raised was the question of “disparate impact” claims under ENDA. Olson’s technical arguments were potentially confusing even for an attorney like myself, so it’s worth trying to explain them in plain English.
Under existing employment discrimination laws, there are two types of unlawful discrimination claims. “Disparate treatment” cases are where there is evidence of intentional discrimination by the employer. Vandy Beth Glenn suffered a classic case of disparate treatment when her boss fired her for the stated reason that she was transitioning from male to female. The principle of “disparate impact” is different: an employer may not take actions that have the overall effect of excluding a group of people, unless there is a sufficient reason to do so. For example, height and weight requirements have a disparate impact on women because (even though some women would meet them) they tend, on average, to exclude more women than men. Unless an employer can demonstrate a sound reason for using these requirements, they will be deemed discriminatory.
The law of disparate impact has been a powerful tool for promoting the inclusion of women and minority groups in the workplace. Some conservatives, however, oppose it because they view it as a form of “reverse discrimination.” Justice Antonin Scalia even speculated earlier this year that disparate impact laws could be unconstitutional. Because it has become something of a political football, disparate impact would be a sticking point under any new antidiscrimination law. But as Rep. Robert Andrews pointed out at the hearing, it would be hard to think of a situation where a disparate impact claim could be brought under ENDA. (No short men or tall women? No Streisand fans need apply?) So, to avoid distracting debates on the subject, ENDA states that “Only disparate treatment claims may be brought under this Act.” That seems plenty clear to us. But Olson suggested that ENDA needs, well, added redundancy: to provide in so many words that disparate impact claims are barred, and that “disparate impact” means that same thing it does under every other law. Of course, as Acting EEOC Chair Stuart Ishimaru stated at the hearing, that’s really not needed: read in context, the bill is already crystal clear.
Like many of the other questions that have been raised about ENDA, this one is really a non-issue. We can expect to see more such non-issues raised in the weeks ahead.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
ENDA: Why state discrimination matters
At last week's House hearing on ENDA, not just one but two witnesses testified specifically to the existence of longstanding and widespread discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity by state governments. Yale Law Professor William Eskridge recounted the historical campaigns of exposure and exclusion of LGBT public employees. And UCLA Law Professor Brad Sears summarized an extensive new report by the Williams Institute on the past and present extent of state employment discrimination. Why so much attention to state employees, who make up less than 5% of the American workforce are currently more likely to be protected under state law than private-sector workers?
The answer lies in a peculiar series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the last fifteen years. Those cases have sharply limited the compensation available to public employees under federal civil rights laws, on the theory that state governments possess "sovereign immunity" from employees' claims. For example, the high court held in 1991 that state workers fired because of a disability could not obtain back pay, even though it was specifically guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The justices reasoned that Congress did not muster sufficient evidence that discrimination against state employees in particular was a widespread problem that would justify subjecting states to lawsuits. While Congress, civil rights advocates and most legal scholars were incensed, this special requirement has hung over many civil rights laws ever since, threatening to create a substantial hole in legal protections. (An article I wrote in my previous job discusses these legal doctrines in more depth.)
Because much of the discrimination suffered by LGBT workers occurs in the public sector - such as the blatantly discriminatory firing of Vandy Beth Glenn by the Georgia legislature - ENDA's drafters and supporters have taken great pains to ensure that state workers are fully protected. This is being done by two methods. First, ENDA specifically requires that state governments waive any immunity from lawsuits as a condition of continuing to receive federal program funds - an approach that has been effective under a number of other laws. Second, the Williams Institute lays the foundation for what may be the most extensive congressional record ever concerning employment discrimination by states.
If this sounds like a lot of technical hoops to jump through, that's because it is: these legal doctrines, invented by a narrow majority of the Supreme Court, create rigid and artificial barriers to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of LGBT employees - and indeed, of all employees. But for the moment, these are the rules of the game, and it is a testament to the dedication of our Congressional allies, and the researchers at the Williams Institute, that no stone is being left unturned to ensure that no transgender worker is left unprotected.
The answer lies in a peculiar series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the last fifteen years. Those cases have sharply limited the compensation available to public employees under federal civil rights laws, on the theory that state governments possess "sovereign immunity" from employees' claims. For example, the high court held in 1991 that state workers fired because of a disability could not obtain back pay, even though it was specifically guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The justices reasoned that Congress did not muster sufficient evidence that discrimination against state employees in particular was a widespread problem that would justify subjecting states to lawsuits. While Congress, civil rights advocates and most legal scholars were incensed, this special requirement has hung over many civil rights laws ever since, threatening to create a substantial hole in legal protections. (An article I wrote in my previous job discusses these legal doctrines in more depth.)
Because much of the discrimination suffered by LGBT workers occurs in the public sector - such as the blatantly discriminatory firing of Vandy Beth Glenn by the Georgia legislature - ENDA's drafters and supporters have taken great pains to ensure that state workers are fully protected. This is being done by two methods. First, ENDA specifically requires that state governments waive any immunity from lawsuits as a condition of continuing to receive federal program funds - an approach that has been effective under a number of other laws. Second, the Williams Institute lays the foundation for what may be the most extensive congressional record ever concerning employment discrimination by states.
If this sounds like a lot of technical hoops to jump through, that's because it is: these legal doctrines, invented by a narrow majority of the Supreme Court, create rigid and artificial barriers to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of LGBT employees - and indeed, of all employees. But for the moment, these are the rules of the game, and it is a testament to the dedication of our Congressional allies, and the researchers at the Williams Institute, that no stone is being left unturned to ensure that no transgender worker is left unprotected.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Ending Discrimination in All its Forms
Yesterday I had the honor of meeting Congressman John Lewis when I went with 3 of his constituents--Vandy Beth Glenn, who had just testified about her experience being fired for being transgender; her attorney from Lambda Legal, Cole Thaler; and her friend, David Deriso.It was an amazing experience to meet this incredible hero of the civil rights movement, who knows so very personally the violence that is directed at those who challenge oppression and seek basic human rights. Yesterday, he told us that he had learned long, long ago that discrimination is discrimination, and that all of its forms are wrong.
This is, of course, a powerful statement, but even more moving coming from him, and in the midst of a conversation about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the challenges that transgender people face. He told us that he would fight discrimination as long as he had breath in his body.
He and his staff were warm and personal. His office felt like a safe haven for that period of time from the struggles we face, and a reminder of the role of elected officials to make our country a better, safer place for all of us. We have a long way to go, but even in the halls of power, there are sanctuaries and allies, and it is good to remember that from time to time.
Another powerful moment for me yesterday was sitting in the hearing room, listening to the testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor. I realized that I was surrounded by incredible trans advocates and allies--like Babs Caspar, Lisa Mottet, Shannon Minter and dozens of others--many of whom had been working over the last two decades to bring us to the day when we will pass employment protections that include sexual orientation and gender identity.
But we're not done yet and I hope you'll join us in doing all we can to make that day a reality.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Labor Day and Transgender Workers
It is quite fitting that our final push for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) begins at the time that we as Americans celebrate Labor Day. This is our moment to say that transgender people have the right to be employed, to be judged on the quality of the work we do, and not on who we are. It is a time to stand up with dignity and assert our equality in the workplace.
As stories of discrimination have been coming in, I’ve been struck by the power of people being willing to tell the truth about what happened to them. By speaking out, we send a message that these acts of discrimination are not acceptable to us as individuals or as Americans. Each story says, in its own way, that the pain of what happened when someone was fired or treated badly is an outrage. And we need to say that over and over again.
The Labor Day holiday was born out of the labor unrest in the 19th century, when workers spoke out for better pay, safer working conditions, and the end of company control of their lives. When the Pullman workers went on strike in 1894, President Grover Cleveland sent 12,000 troops to break the strike, resulting in violence and the death of two strikers. In an attempt to win back some labor votes that election year, Cleveland established Labor Day as a gesture to American workers.
A few years after the holiday was established, the head of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers, declared it "the day for which the toilers in past centuries looked forward, when their rights and their wrongs would be discussed...that the workers of our day may not only lay down their tools of labor for a holiday, but upon which they may touch shoulders in marching phalanx and feel the stronger for it."
This is our time to stand shoulder to shoulder, to demand that discrimination against transgender people in the workplace must end and must end now. Will you take a stand and work to pass ENDA with us? We will all feel stronger for it.
Join us tonight, September 8, for our conference call to get updated on ENDA. Click for more info and free registration is available here.
If you have experienced workplace discrimination, please consider telling us your story. It is valuable information as we talk with members of Congress about why this bill is so important. You can choose whether or not we will disclose your name.
As stories of discrimination have been coming in, I’ve been struck by the power of people being willing to tell the truth about what happened to them. By speaking out, we send a message that these acts of discrimination are not acceptable to us as individuals or as Americans. Each story says, in its own way, that the pain of what happened when someone was fired or treated badly is an outrage. And we need to say that over and over again.
The Labor Day holiday was born out of the labor unrest in the 19th century, when workers spoke out for better pay, safer working conditions, and the end of company control of their lives. When the Pullman workers went on strike in 1894, President Grover Cleveland sent 12,000 troops to break the strike, resulting in violence and the death of two strikers. In an attempt to win back some labor votes that election year, Cleveland established Labor Day as a gesture to American workers.
A few years after the holiday was established, the head of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers, declared it "the day for which the toilers in past centuries looked forward, when their rights and their wrongs would be discussed...that the workers of our day may not only lay down their tools of labor for a holiday, but upon which they may touch shoulders in marching phalanx and feel the stronger for it."
This is our time to stand shoulder to shoulder, to demand that discrimination against transgender people in the workplace must end and must end now. Will you take a stand and work to pass ENDA with us? We will all feel stronger for it.
Join us tonight, September 8, for our conference call to get updated on ENDA. Click for more info and free registration is available here.
If you have experienced workplace discrimination, please consider telling us your story. It is valuable information as we talk with members of Congress about why this bill is so important. You can choose whether or not we will disclose your name.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Clarification on the Secure Flight program
We've been getting a lot of questions about the Transportation Security Authority's Secure Flight program, under which airline passengers are now being asked to provide their date of birth and gender to airline personnel. We hope that our new Secure Flight FAQ addresses most of those questions, but we wanted to take a moment to make explicit one thing that we've been asked about repeatedly:
At this time, the Secure Flight Program does not include checking passenger data against state driver’s license databases, Social Security records, or anything other than the government-issued identification you bring to the airport. The purpose of this program is solely to identify individuals on federal watch lists and eliminate false positives with those lists, not to verify the identity or personal information of travelers.
Accordingly, it should not matter whether there is a discrepancy between different identity documents or government records, as long as the information on your reservation matches the ID you bring to the airport. We will, of course, be monitoring the program's implementation for any such problems down the line. If you have encounter difficulties with airline or TSA staff, please let us know about them.
At this time, the Secure Flight Program does not include checking passenger data against state driver’s license databases, Social Security records, or anything other than the government-issued identification you bring to the airport. The purpose of this program is solely to identify individuals on federal watch lists and eliminate false positives with those lists, not to verify the identity or personal information of travelers.
Accordingly, it should not matter whether there is a discrepancy between different identity documents or government records, as long as the information on your reservation matches the ID you bring to the airport. We will, of course, be monitoring the program's implementation for any such problems down the line. If you have encounter difficulties with airline or TSA staff, please let us know about them.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
On the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act
Today is the anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, designed to ensure that African-Americans were able to exercise their right to vote. The Justice Department website today hails the measure, noting it “has been called the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress.” The law has gone through various extensions in 1970, 1975, and 1982, clarifying and increasing the effectiveness and scope of the legislation.
The history of the Voting Rights Act reminds us that the movement for equal rights doesn’t consist of one-time victories, but on-going work and evolution. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in 1870, already guaranteed the right to vote, but states were creative in their efforts to develop and implement hurdles aimed specifically to prevent African-Americans from exercising that right. Several attempts had been made during the years leading up to 1965 to address the issue, but ultimately, a federal law was needed that focused very specifically on voting rights. Adding to the urgency was the backdrop of violence that targeted voting rights advocates and civil rights demonstrators, as well as the prevalent discrimination faced by African-Americans.
The Voting Rights Act was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1966 when it noted that “widespread and persistent discrimination” couldn’t be addressed only on a case-by-case basis, but needed broader legislation.
The efforts to pass and implement the Voting Rights Act remind us today that the movement for equal rights is an ongoing process. There is no single bill or single incident that brings about justice; rather, this Act was the cumulative effort of legislation, activism, sacrifice and diligence. And efforts to ensure that voters continue to be enfranchised need to be ongoing as well, as transgender people well know.
We too face a situation where a patchwork of state laws simply isn’t adequate to address the violence and discrimination our community faces. For many of the same reasons that a federal law was needed in 1965 to ensure voting rights throughout the states, transgender people need federal legislation to ensure the right to equal employment and access to resources to address and prevent hate crimes. Widespread discrimination needs federal action to send a clear message that prejudice is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made our country a stronger and better place; yet, as successful at this law has been, we have more work to do to address the ongoing racism and other forms of oppression and prejudice that continue to plague the United States. Each positive and concrete step towards justice is to be honored and celebrated and each needs to inspire us to take the next step, and the one after that, and the one after that.
The history of the Voting Rights Act reminds us that the movement for equal rights doesn’t consist of one-time victories, but on-going work and evolution. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in 1870, already guaranteed the right to vote, but states were creative in their efforts to develop and implement hurdles aimed specifically to prevent African-Americans from exercising that right. Several attempts had been made during the years leading up to 1965 to address the issue, but ultimately, a federal law was needed that focused very specifically on voting rights. Adding to the urgency was the backdrop of violence that targeted voting rights advocates and civil rights demonstrators, as well as the prevalent discrimination faced by African-Americans.
The Voting Rights Act was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1966 when it noted that “widespread and persistent discrimination” couldn’t be addressed only on a case-by-case basis, but needed broader legislation.
The efforts to pass and implement the Voting Rights Act remind us today that the movement for equal rights is an ongoing process. There is no single bill or single incident that brings about justice; rather, this Act was the cumulative effort of legislation, activism, sacrifice and diligence. And efforts to ensure that voters continue to be enfranchised need to be ongoing as well, as transgender people well know.
We too face a situation where a patchwork of state laws simply isn’t adequate to address the violence and discrimination our community faces. For many of the same reasons that a federal law was needed in 1965 to ensure voting rights throughout the states, transgender people need federal legislation to ensure the right to equal employment and access to resources to address and prevent hate crimes. Widespread discrimination needs federal action to send a clear message that prejudice is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made our country a stronger and better place; yet, as successful at this law has been, we have more work to do to address the ongoing racism and other forms of oppression and prejudice that continue to plague the United States. Each positive and concrete step towards justice is to be honored and celebrated and each needs to inspire us to take the next step, and the one after that, and the one after that.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Is Google watching what you read?
It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that countless transgender people's lives have been saved by books. Many of us first encountered others somewhat like ourselves in books painstakingly searched for in libraries, publications ordered through the mail - or more recently, through information located online. Decades ago, personal memoirs and obscure medical text furnished critical information and affirmation for isolated individuals. Recent years have seen an explosion of books on transgender topics - from personal essays to scientific treatises, historical tomes to manuals for helping professionals. These resources are invaluable for individuals who are exploring their gender identities, considering coming out to their loved ones, or contemplating transition.
One of the most crucial values of online resources - and increasingly of online books - for trans people is the ability to access them privately, from one's own home. So it's great news that Google is on the verge of expanding its online books services, Google Books, to make millions of books available for browsing and reading online. But Google's lack of privacy protections for Google Books users should greatly concern trans people. As it stands, the company's system design allows them to track what books users are accessing, what pages they're interested in, and even what notes their making in the books' electronic "margins." Nothing is stopping Google from not only collecting and analyzing this information, but also sharing it with other businesses or government agencies (in the U.S. or abroad).
The ACLU of Northern California is running a public campaign to ask Google to commit to some basic privacy protections on Google Books. You can read more about their campaign, and send a message to Google, through the ACLU NC's website.
One of the most crucial values of online resources - and increasingly of online books - for trans people is the ability to access them privately, from one's own home. So it's great news that Google is on the verge of expanding its online books services, Google Books, to make millions of books available for browsing and reading online. But Google's lack of privacy protections for Google Books users should greatly concern trans people. As it stands, the company's system design allows them to track what books users are accessing, what pages they're interested in, and even what notes their making in the books' electronic "margins." Nothing is stopping Google from not only collecting and analyzing this information, but also sharing it with other businesses or government agencies (in the U.S. or abroad).
The ACLU of Northern California is running a public campaign to ask Google to commit to some basic privacy protections on Google Books. You can read more about their campaign, and send a message to Google, through the ACLU NC's website.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sign the ENDA petition - and tell your friends
While much of our attention is focused on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill, right now is also a critical time to build support for ENDA. We currently have 146 House co-sponsors, but we need many more.
As part of our 9 Weeks for Equality campaign, we've launched a petition in support of a fully inclusive ENDA. Please sign the petition supporting the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. Then reach out to your friends and ask them to do the same. The online petition will automatically generate a letter that is sent to your members of Congress.
You can also print out a petition and go out and gather some signatures at your local farmer's market, at the student union, among your support group members or wherever people gather in your community. You can fax the petition to your members of Congress (see www.house.gov and www.senate.gov for their fax numbers). Please send us a copy as well so we can give you credit and know how many people are signing.
Petitions need to be signed with people's names; anonymous signatures are not counted by members of Congress. This is a time to take a stand for transgender equality. And, remember, we need as many signatures as possible-not just transgender people, but our co-workers, family members, friends and people in the general public who support equality.
As part of our 9 Weeks for Equality campaign, we've launched a petition in support of a fully inclusive ENDA. Please sign the petition supporting the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. Then reach out to your friends and ask them to do the same. The online petition will automatically generate a letter that is sent to your members of Congress.
You can also print out a petition and go out and gather some signatures at your local farmer's market, at the student union, among your support group members or wherever people gather in your community. You can fax the petition to your members of Congress (see www.house.gov and www.senate.gov for their fax numbers). Please send us a copy as well so we can give you credit and know how many people are signing.
Petitions need to be signed with people's names; anonymous signatures are not counted by members of Congress. This is a time to take a stand for transgender equality. And, remember, we need as many signatures as possible-not just transgender people, but our co-workers, family members, friends and people in the general public who support equality.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Another Victory and Another Step
Late last evening, a vote was held on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill in the United States Senate. There has been some confusion about the meaning of the vote and what the next steps are, so I thought I’d write and clear it up as best as possible. Please understand that there are still some unknowns working out now.
Background: What Happened Before Last Night
In the House of Representatives, two votes have been held that matter for this discussion. First, on April 29, by a vote of 249-175, the House passed H.R. 1913 (The Local Law Enforcement hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is the House version of the Matthew Shepard Act and essentially identical). Second, the House has also passed it’s own version of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, which I’ll now call the DoD bill.
Also of importance to understand is that the White House has announced that the President would veto the DoD bill if, when it passes, it still contains funding for F-22 fighter aircraft because they consider the planes to be militarily and budgetarily undesirable. Some Senators are trying to remove the F-22 funding from the bill and some Senators are trying to keep the F-22 funding. I’ll explain in a moment how that impacts the hate crimes bill.
Finally, because of how Senate rules work, it was mostly advantageous to the Hate Crimes bill that it be attached to another bill that would be getting a vote in the Senate rather than running as a bill on its own. In previous years the DoD Authorization was selected as the vehicle onto which hate crimes would be attached because it was thought to be a must-sign bill for President Bush who would not want to disrupt the DoD just to express support for radical right people who hate the hate crimes bill. This year, Senate leadership decided that the DoD bill would be best the vehicle primarily because, in their estimation, it was basically the last train leaving the station if hate crimes were to pass this summer.
What Happened Last Night
Last night (Thursday) we had a vote on the Matthew Shepard Act. The vote was 63-28 and it is now attached to the DoD bill which will get a vote approximately next Wednesday or Thursday after additional amendments are considered early next week. Every Democrat voted yes (except Kennedy and Byrd who were absent) and 5 Republicans voted yes (Collins (R-ME), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Voinovich (R-OH) ). I’ll append the rollcall list at the end of this post.
Here is what happened. A leadership agreement was reached between the Dems. and Reps. that the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment would be considered. The agreement was that last night there would be votes on two Republican amendments and one Democratic amendment, followed by a cloture vote (this stops or closes debate) on the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment and a vote to adopt the amendment. All of these things happened. Two unimportant amendments were adopted simply restated the First Amendment protections that are already clearly in both the bill and the Constitution. Additionally Senator Hatch proposed, but lost, an amendment that would have gutted the hate crimes act by studying it to death.
The bottom line about last night though is that the Matthew Shepard Act got the vote we had all been working for in the Senate and the vote totals were inspiring. Ultimately, all of the people who had called their Senators and all the people who visited their Senators won the support of two-thirds of the United State Senate. That’s spectacular.
What Happens Next?
It does not appear likely that another vote directly on the overall Matthew Shepard Act will be necessary in the Senate or the House. Yet there will be several more votes of significance on related matters that we will be monitoring. We are still optimistic that it will be signed into law this year, but that is probably still a few months away. Here is why.
Come Monday, Senators will offer four additional amendments on the topic of hate crimes. We know that one of these will attempt to add military service people as a protected class. Another is a really horrendous amendment that would add the death penalty to the Hate crimes provisions. NCTE strongly rejects the death penalty and is fervently opposed to the Sessions Amendment and will be encouraging our members to contact their Senators in opposition. NCTE would not support a hate crime law that included a death penalty provision. Regardless, Senator Sessions is trying to add the amendment as a posion pill meant to kill it; he will not vote for the Act with or without the death penalty.
The other debate to watch this week will be around the F-22 aircraft. Just Wednesday, the White House reiterated its seemingly firm intention of vetoing the entire DoD bill if the F-22 funding is retained. Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal blog post about the issue: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/26/air-force-secretary-repeats-f-22-veto-threat/. The debate, by the way, is not about whether we need F-22s--it is about whether we need 187 F-22 or closer to 200. The Air Force and the White House think we need 187 of them while members of Congress in whose districts the aircraft and their parts are built think we need to build more.
I am not sufficiently versed in military policy to gauge the likelihood of the F-22 funding remaining in the bill. There will be a robust discussion of this issue and probably a vote early next week and that obviously will impact the prospects of the hate crimes bill to become law.
It is anticipated that at some point later in the week (Wednesday or Thursday probably), there will be a vote on the overall DoD bill. We expect that it will pass with or without the F-22 funding. Again, there is not likely to be another vote directly on the hate crimes bill, but votes on the various amendments are very important and will be followed closely. And NCTE is strongly against the Senator Sessions Death Penalty Amendment.
Assuming that the DoD bill is voted on and passes, it will go to a House-Senate conference committee over the August recess (which they don't call a recess but rather something like a Summer In-District Work period). A conference happens when a bill passes both the House and the Senate but what is passed is not identical. The conference reconciles the differences and issues a conference report that both chambers then approve or disapprove. In this case, we would expect to see a conference report in September so that Congress can vote on the bill and send it to the White House for signing or vetoing before September 30 when the federal fiscal year ends.
At this point, we assume that if the funding for the aircraft is still in the bill, the President will veto it and the Senate will need to strip the F-22 funding or override the President’s veto or do something else thus passing both a DoD Authorization bill and a hate crimes bill. The White House and House and Senate Leadership have assured our coalition over and over that, regardless of a possible veto of this bill, the Matthew Shepard Act will be included in the bill that is eventually signed into law sometime this year.
What can people do?
The first important step people can take is to contact their two Senators before the Monday afternoon vote on the death penalty amendment from Senator Sessions and ask them to defeat it. If they voted for the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment last night, thank them for their support and leadership. NCTE will update people as additional actions are necessary.
Thanks to everyone who called, wrote to or visited their Senators.
For another take on last night’s win read this Associated Press piece
The full roll call vote of how Senators voted begins now.
Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Begich (D-AK), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Not Voting Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting Burr (R-NC), Nay Burris (D-IL), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), YeaCasey (D-PA), YeaChambliss (R-GA), NayCoburn (R-OK), NayCochran (R-MS), NayCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), YeaCorker (R-TN), Not VotingCornyn (R-TX), NayCrapo (R-ID), NayDeMint (R-SC), NayDodd (D-CT), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), YeaEnsign (R-NV), NayEnzi (R-WY), NayFeingold (D-WI), YeaFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFranken (D-MN), YeaGillibrand (D-NY), YeaGraham (R-SC), Not VotingGrassley (R-IA), NayGregg (R-NH), Not VotingHagan (D-NC), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), NayHutchison (R-TX), NayInhofe (R-OK), NayInouye (D-HI), YeaIsakson (R-GA), NayJohanns (R-NE), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKaufman (D-DE), YeaKennedy (D-MA), Not VotingKerry (D-MA), YeaKlobuchar (D-MN), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), NayLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLautenberg (D-NJ), YeaLeahy (D-VT), YeaLevin (D-MI), YeaLieberman (ID-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMartinez (R-FL), Not VotingMcCain (R-AZ), NayMcCaskill (D-MO), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), NayMenendez (D-NJ), YeaMerkley (D-OR), YeaMikulski (D-MD), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), YeaNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaPryor (D-AR), YeaReed (D-RI), YeaReid (D-NV), YeaRisch (R-ID), NayRoberts (R-KS), NayRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSanders (I-VT), YeaSchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), NayShaheen (D-NH), YeaShelby (R-AL), NaySnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (D-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), YeaTester (D-MT), YeaThune (R-SD), NayUdall (D-CO), YeaUdall (D-NM), YeaVitter (R-LA), NayVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (D-VA), YeaWebb (D-VA), YeaWhitehouse (D-RI), YeaWicker (R-MS), NayWyden (D-OR), Yea
Background: What Happened Before Last Night
In the House of Representatives, two votes have been held that matter for this discussion. First, on April 29, by a vote of 249-175, the House passed H.R. 1913 (The Local Law Enforcement hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is the House version of the Matthew Shepard Act and essentially identical). Second, the House has also passed it’s own version of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, which I’ll now call the DoD bill.
Also of importance to understand is that the White House has announced that the President would veto the DoD bill if, when it passes, it still contains funding for F-22 fighter aircraft because they consider the planes to be militarily and budgetarily undesirable. Some Senators are trying to remove the F-22 funding from the bill and some Senators are trying to keep the F-22 funding. I’ll explain in a moment how that impacts the hate crimes bill.
Finally, because of how Senate rules work, it was mostly advantageous to the Hate Crimes bill that it be attached to another bill that would be getting a vote in the Senate rather than running as a bill on its own. In previous years the DoD Authorization was selected as the vehicle onto which hate crimes would be attached because it was thought to be a must-sign bill for President Bush who would not want to disrupt the DoD just to express support for radical right people who hate the hate crimes bill. This year, Senate leadership decided that the DoD bill would be best the vehicle primarily because, in their estimation, it was basically the last train leaving the station if hate crimes were to pass this summer.
What Happened Last Night
Last night (Thursday) we had a vote on the Matthew Shepard Act. The vote was 63-28 and it is now attached to the DoD bill which will get a vote approximately next Wednesday or Thursday after additional amendments are considered early next week. Every Democrat voted yes (except Kennedy and Byrd who were absent) and 5 Republicans voted yes (Collins (R-ME), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Voinovich (R-OH) ). I’ll append the rollcall list at the end of this post.
Here is what happened. A leadership agreement was reached between the Dems. and Reps. that the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment would be considered. The agreement was that last night there would be votes on two Republican amendments and one Democratic amendment, followed by a cloture vote (this stops or closes debate) on the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment and a vote to adopt the amendment. All of these things happened. Two unimportant amendments were adopted simply restated the First Amendment protections that are already clearly in both the bill and the Constitution. Additionally Senator Hatch proposed, but lost, an amendment that would have gutted the hate crimes act by studying it to death.
The bottom line about last night though is that the Matthew Shepard Act got the vote we had all been working for in the Senate and the vote totals were inspiring. Ultimately, all of the people who had called their Senators and all the people who visited their Senators won the support of two-thirds of the United State Senate. That’s spectacular.
What Happens Next?
It does not appear likely that another vote directly on the overall Matthew Shepard Act will be necessary in the Senate or the House. Yet there will be several more votes of significance on related matters that we will be monitoring. We are still optimistic that it will be signed into law this year, but that is probably still a few months away. Here is why.
Come Monday, Senators will offer four additional amendments on the topic of hate crimes. We know that one of these will attempt to add military service people as a protected class. Another is a really horrendous amendment that would add the death penalty to the Hate crimes provisions. NCTE strongly rejects the death penalty and is fervently opposed to the Sessions Amendment and will be encouraging our members to contact their Senators in opposition. NCTE would not support a hate crime law that included a death penalty provision. Regardless, Senator Sessions is trying to add the amendment as a posion pill meant to kill it; he will not vote for the Act with or without the death penalty.
The other debate to watch this week will be around the F-22 aircraft. Just Wednesday, the White House reiterated its seemingly firm intention of vetoing the entire DoD bill if the F-22 funding is retained. Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal blog post about the issue: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/26/air-force-secretary-repeats-f-22-veto-threat/. The debate, by the way, is not about whether we need F-22s--it is about whether we need 187 F-22 or closer to 200. The Air Force and the White House think we need 187 of them while members of Congress in whose districts the aircraft and their parts are built think we need to build more.
I am not sufficiently versed in military policy to gauge the likelihood of the F-22 funding remaining in the bill. There will be a robust discussion of this issue and probably a vote early next week and that obviously will impact the prospects of the hate crimes bill to become law.
It is anticipated that at some point later in the week (Wednesday or Thursday probably), there will be a vote on the overall DoD bill. We expect that it will pass with or without the F-22 funding. Again, there is not likely to be another vote directly on the hate crimes bill, but votes on the various amendments are very important and will be followed closely. And NCTE is strongly against the Senator Sessions Death Penalty Amendment.
Assuming that the DoD bill is voted on and passes, it will go to a House-Senate conference committee over the August recess (which they don't call a recess but rather something like a Summer In-District Work period). A conference happens when a bill passes both the House and the Senate but what is passed is not identical. The conference reconciles the differences and issues a conference report that both chambers then approve or disapprove. In this case, we would expect to see a conference report in September so that Congress can vote on the bill and send it to the White House for signing or vetoing before September 30 when the federal fiscal year ends.
At this point, we assume that if the funding for the aircraft is still in the bill, the President will veto it and the Senate will need to strip the F-22 funding or override the President’s veto or do something else thus passing both a DoD Authorization bill and a hate crimes bill. The White House and House and Senate Leadership have assured our coalition over and over that, regardless of a possible veto of this bill, the Matthew Shepard Act will be included in the bill that is eventually signed into law sometime this year.
What can people do?
The first important step people can take is to contact their two Senators before the Monday afternoon vote on the death penalty amendment from Senator Sessions and ask them to defeat it. If they voted for the Matthew Shepard Act Amendment last night, thank them for their support and leadership. NCTE will update people as additional actions are necessary.
Thanks to everyone who called, wrote to or visited their Senators.
For another take on last night’s win read this Associated Press piece
The full roll call vote of how Senators voted begins now.
Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Begich (D-AK), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Not Voting Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting Burr (R-NC), Nay Burris (D-IL), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), YeaCasey (D-PA), YeaChambliss (R-GA), NayCoburn (R-OK), NayCochran (R-MS), NayCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), YeaCorker (R-TN), Not VotingCornyn (R-TX), NayCrapo (R-ID), NayDeMint (R-SC), NayDodd (D-CT), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), YeaEnsign (R-NV), NayEnzi (R-WY), NayFeingold (D-WI), YeaFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFranken (D-MN), YeaGillibrand (D-NY), YeaGraham (R-SC), Not VotingGrassley (R-IA), NayGregg (R-NH), Not VotingHagan (D-NC), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), NayHutchison (R-TX), NayInhofe (R-OK), NayInouye (D-HI), YeaIsakson (R-GA), NayJohanns (R-NE), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKaufman (D-DE), YeaKennedy (D-MA), Not VotingKerry (D-MA), YeaKlobuchar (D-MN), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), NayLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLautenberg (D-NJ), YeaLeahy (D-VT), YeaLevin (D-MI), YeaLieberman (ID-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMartinez (R-FL), Not VotingMcCain (R-AZ), NayMcCaskill (D-MO), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), NayMenendez (D-NJ), YeaMerkley (D-OR), YeaMikulski (D-MD), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), YeaNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaPryor (D-AR), YeaReed (D-RI), YeaReid (D-NV), YeaRisch (R-ID), NayRoberts (R-KS), NayRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSanders (I-VT), YeaSchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), NayShaheen (D-NH), YeaShelby (R-AL), NaySnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (D-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), YeaTester (D-MT), YeaThune (R-SD), NayUdall (D-CO), YeaUdall (D-NM), YeaVitter (R-LA), NayVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (D-VA), YeaWebb (D-VA), YeaWhitehouse (D-RI), YeaWicker (R-MS), NayWyden (D-OR), Yea
Verdict In Lateisha Green Court Trial
Today in Syracuse, New York, a 12-member jury found Dwight DeLee guilty of manslaughter in the first degree as a hate crime and criminal possession of a weapon for the murder of Lateisha Green on November 14, 2008. This verdict represents the first hate crime conviction for the murder of a transgender person in the state of New York. We hope that Lateisha's family can find some measure of peace and healing as a result of this decision. Below you will find a statement released by Lateisha's family.
"Teish, a beautiful girl. A wonderful daughter. A brave soul. Teish was all of these things despite the adversity that regularly tried to weigh her down and overshadow her love of life. She was taken away from us too soon. All it took was one bullet.
A bullet from a rifle that pierced her lungs and heart. And it took this one mere bullet to end Teish's life because she happened to be a transgender woman. We have spent months waiting for this day to come.
8 long months that have kept our family captive to our fears, sadness and anger. Afraid to leave our homes, sad to have lost Teish and angry that we couldn't prevent this from happening to our little girl. But today, the jury delivered a verdict that will end most of the horrors experienced by our family and friends.
The jury convicted Dwight DeLee of killing Teish in cold blood. They found him guilty of targeting Teish simply because of her difference. And the jury has made it clear that any loss of life in our city and county because of anti-gay and anti-transgender bias is unacceptable and wrong. Justice has been done.
But we will never get to see Teish ever again. She will forever live in our hearts and minds. And it is our duty to share her story so that Teish's memory will be kept alive. We do this so this series of painful events will never happen again to any other person because they are different.
Our family and friends will continue to talk about Teish so others may know the love and support that every child deserves regardless of their differences. We want to thank everyone who stood behind us and gave our family strength during such difficult times. The overwhelming amount of support has meant so much to us. We want to close by saying life is precious. Teish knew that and that's why she would tell everyone here to be brave. To be authentic and true to yourself. And Teish would give a beautiful and bright smile to everyone here. Thank you."
"Teish, a beautiful girl. A wonderful daughter. A brave soul. Teish was all of these things despite the adversity that regularly tried to weigh her down and overshadow her love of life. She was taken away from us too soon. All it took was one bullet.
A bullet from a rifle that pierced her lungs and heart. And it took this one mere bullet to end Teish's life because she happened to be a transgender woman. We have spent months waiting for this day to come.
8 long months that have kept our family captive to our fears, sadness and anger. Afraid to leave our homes, sad to have lost Teish and angry that we couldn't prevent this from happening to our little girl. But today, the jury delivered a verdict that will end most of the horrors experienced by our family and friends.
The jury convicted Dwight DeLee of killing Teish in cold blood. They found him guilty of targeting Teish simply because of her difference. And the jury has made it clear that any loss of life in our city and county because of anti-gay and anti-transgender bias is unacceptable and wrong. Justice has been done.
But we will never get to see Teish ever again. She will forever live in our hearts and minds. And it is our duty to share her story so that Teish's memory will be kept alive. We do this so this series of painful events will never happen again to any other person because they are different.
Our family and friends will continue to talk about Teish so others may know the love and support that every child deserves regardless of their differences. We want to thank everyone who stood behind us and gave our family strength during such difficult times. The overwhelming amount of support has meant so much to us. We want to close by saying life is precious. Teish knew that and that's why she would tell everyone here to be brave. To be authentic and true to yourself. And Teish would give a beautiful and bright smile to everyone here. Thank you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
