|
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT REPORT
2005-2006 Legislative Session Submitted by Larry Frankel, Legislative Director The ACLU of Pennsylvania enjoyed a number of legislative victories over the last two years. Many of our successes were the result of solid work with coalitions. One thing is abundantly clear; we accomplish more whenever we find partners who are willing to work with us. The Legislative Department benefited from timely help provided by ACLU staff and volunteers. I want to make special mention of the assistance provided by the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Community Organizers. They helped mobilize our grass roots by making sure our members and friends were kept up-to-date on all of the developments regarding legislative matters. They organized phone banks, town halls and e-mail campaigns. The Community Organizers assisted the staff of the Legislative Department on many fronts during the last two years and their assistance was particularly critical on several issues - Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, Voting Rights, Academic Freedom, Innocence Commission, PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, and NSA Wiretapping. Here are the highlights of the 2005-06 legislative session. STATE LEGISLATIVE ISSUESPennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment The ACLU of Pennsylvania played an instrumental role in the successful campaign to defeat the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment on marriage failed when competing versions of it were not reconciled before the legislature began its 2006 summer recess. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed an extreme version of the constitutional amendment - one that would have barred same-sex marriage, civil unions and possibly even recognition of domestic partnerships. The Senate of Pennsylvania passed a less extreme version - one that only barred same-sex marriage. The version that passed the Senate was unacceptable to the proponents of the version that passed the House. Since both chambers did not pass the exact same version of the proposed constitutional amendment the measure died. I believe we can learn a lot from this victory. This success is largely attributable to the work of the Value All Families Coalition, which we helped found and in which we play a leadership role. The Value All Families Coalition brings together a range of groups that are committed to fighting for legal recognition of LGBT relationships. We worked on a daily basis with the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights (which now has a new name - "Equality Advocates Pennsylvania") to make sure that the members of this Coalition were letting our State Senators and Representatives know that there was significant and widespread opposition to the proposed amendment. There were many LGBT organizations involved in this fight, groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Liberty PA, Log Cabin Republicans, Out Front, Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance and PFLAG. Each of these groups motivated its members to visit, call, write and e-mail their legislators.
There also were many non-LGBT organizations that worked on the marriage amendment and their contributions to this victory deserve recognition. These diverse organizations have agendas that include LGBT equality as well as a range of other issues. Among the groups that helped us win this victory are the Pennsylvania Service Employees International Union, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Women's Law Project, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar Associations, Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania, and Support Center for Child Advocates. The efforts of the LGBT organizations and these other groups were outstanding. The significant citizen activism and the incredible number of professional lobbyists in Harrisburg who worked on this were significant. This was a true uniting of a great grass roots effort and insider lobbying that should serve as a model for future campaigns. Voting Rights Thanks to Governor Rendell's veto of House Bill 1318, we were able to fight off a bill that would have disenfranchised thousands of Pennsylvanians and made it a lot harder for many Pennsylvanians to cast a vote on Election Day. When HB 1318 was first introduced in April of 2005, it only made minor changes to the Pennsylvania Election Code. Unfortunately, it became a vehicle for major changes to the Election Code. When the bill was brought to the floor of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in June of 2005 a number of amendments were adopted. Two of those amendments turned this legislation into an attack on voting rights. One amendment sought to impose a requirement on every voter to show photo identification at every election. (Under existing law, only first time voters need to show photo identification.) Another amendment sought to take away the right to vote from persons convicted of a felony during the entire period of their sentences. (Under existing law, a felon can vote while he or she is on probation or parole - this amendment would have disenfranchised felons even while they were on probation or parole). HB 1318, as amended, then went to the Pennsylvania Senate. The Senate stripped the felon disenfranchisement provision from the bill and modified the identification requirements. The Senate passed its amended version of the bill in December of 2005. The House took up the bill again in January of 2006. The bill was reported from the House Rules Committee, which had further amended it. Under this new version, the felon disenfranchisement provision was back in and the identification requirements were made tougher. The House voted for this amended version on February 1, 2006. Because the House and Senate had voted on different versions of this bill, it went to a Conference Committee. The Conference Committee met on February 14, 2006, and voted for a "compromise" report - no disenfranchisement of felons, but some identification requirements. On February 14, 2006, the House voted for the Conference Committee report and the Senate voted for it on February 15, 2006. Governor Rendell vetoed this bill. Most of the Governor's veto announcement focused on the legislation's identification requirements. The ACLU of Pennsylvania opposed the felon disenfranchisement provision every time it appeared in the bill (ultimately it was not part of the bill that passed both chambers). We believe that a person who is convicted of a felony should be able to vote once he or she leaves prison and that it would be a major step backwards for Pennsylvania to start depriving such persons of the right to vote. There is no evidence that permitting felons on probation or parole to vote has caused any problems. Permitting them to vote is consistent with the goals of rehabilitation and successful reentry into society. Furthermore, there is evidence, from other states (not just Florida), that denying such persons the right to vote leads to a whole host of clerical snafus that result in some non-felons being deprived of the right to vote. The ACLU of Pennsylvania also opposed all of the versions of identification requirement because such requirements primarily impact on the elderly, poor, and disabled. They create unnecessary barriers for citizens who have voted without problem for years. In addition, there was no credible evidence that the identification requirements would have really prevented fraud. In fact, there are several studies that show there is little, if any, basis for the allegations of fraud that were being cited by the proponents of the bill. The ACLU of Pennsylvania was involved in fighting this legislation once it became the vehicle for interfering with voting rights. We helped form and lead the "Protect Our Vote Campaign." That coalition included organizations that advocate for racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, senior citizens, women, the homeless and the poor. We spent a lot of time and effort lobbying legislators and motivating others to do the same. We worked closely with key legislators, their staff and our allies in the campaign.
The Rendell Administration also opposed this bill. We even wrote a letter to the Governor asking him to veto the bill. We also did a lot of media work and helped the media and public understand why the bill was problematic. Immigration Having failed in their attempt to legitimize discrimination against committed gay and lesbian couples and in trying to make it harder for some people to vote, several of our state legislators turned their attention to "illegal" immigrants who are "invading" Pennsylvania. Towards the end of June of 2006, a bipartisan group of legislator introduced several bills that were intended to "crack down" on "illegal immigrants" and to make sure that Pennsylvania would be known as a state that does not welcome "illegals." The bills would have imposed penalties on employers who hire "illegal immigrants" and denied services and public benefits to "illegal immigrants." During the summer the House Majority Policy Committee held hearings on immigration issues in Harrisburg, Allentown, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. While we did not present oral testimony at any of those hearings, we provided the Committee with our views as well as many documents describing the role that immigrants play in the Pennsylvania economy. We also met with various groups that work with immigrants and encouraged them to participate in the hearings and get their views into the media. None of the proposed legislation was enacted. We will continue to work to fight these proposals should they reappear. We will also promote a greater understanding of the immigrant population that is here in Pennsylvania and how Pennsylvania would benefit from having even more immigrants. English as the Official Language At the end of June of 2006, the Pennsylvania House amended House Bill 1959 by adding provisions making English the official language of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We opposed that amendment because we think that it violates the First Amendment. The Pennsylvania Senate never considered this legislation and this proposal did not become law. During the election campaign, all of the candidates for Governor indicated their opposition to the bill. Academic Freedom In July of 2005, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Resolution 177 establishing a select committee to review issues related to student academic freedom at Pennsylvania's institutions of higher learning. The select committee conducted a series of hearings to examine the nature of academic freedom and free speech rights of students at Pennsylvania universities and colleges. We closely followed the hearings as we feared that the real agenda for those conducting this investigation was an attempt to limit the academic freedom of professors. One of the members of our University of Pittsburgh Law School chapter testified at a hearing in Pittsburgh last November. On November 21, 2006, the select committee issued its report. The committee found that there was little evidence of infringement of the free speech rights of students in Pennsylvania and that there was no need for legislature to get involved in this area.
|
