Eva authored this guest post on Jan. 11 for the SAFE California Campaign site.

My fiancé, Steve Henry, was murdered in Kingston, Jamaica, on November 25, 1997. As bizarre as this may sound, one of the thoughts I had as the initial shock wore off, was “Well, am I still against the death penalty?” My answer then and now is a resounding “YES”. The death penalty is wrong.

I will be thinking of Steve this weekend as Rev. Jesse Jackson, the California NAACP, and civil rights leaders throughout the state come together to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We are all supporting the SAFE California campaign to end death sentences. Dr. King once said, “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: ‘What are you doing for others?’” I plan to honor Steve’s memory and Dr. King’s passionate commitment to justice.

Will you join us to honor justice and Dr. King?

The SAFE California campaign is sponsored by a broad coalition of justice organizations who are all joined in the commitment to replace the death penalty to protect the innocent, save our very limited state resources, and improve safety in our communities. SAFE is working hard to get the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to qualify the “Savings, Accountability, and Full Enforcement for California Act” ballot initiative in time for the November 2012 election.

I am proud to say that my organization, Equal Justice Society, sits on the SAFE California Campaign Steering Committee. We at Equal Justice Society, like Dr. King and his wife Coretta Scott King, have always been opposed to the death penalty and advocated for an end to this risky and costly punishment. I am also proud to say that many of the dedicated members of Equal Justice Society will be joining the thousands of volunteers statewide who are ready to commemorate Dr. King’s leadership by joining this historic movement over MLK weekend.

Coretta Scott King declared, “As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses.” I know how difficult that statement is to make and I agree wholeheartedly.

Please join me to honor the King family and all victims of senseless violence by making a commitment to justice this coming weekend.

In peace,
Eva Paterson

- Written by Eva Paterson, President and Co-Founder of the Equal Justice Society and guest blogger for the SAFE California Campaign

The San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 1 profiled EJS President Eva Paterson in a special section on local “Change Makers.” James Bell, Nikki Fortunato Bas, Malkia Cyril and Tim Silard were also profiled. Read the intro to the section and Eva’s profile.

The Court has instead become increasingly damaged, especially with landmark decisions such as in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, which told women that Wal-Mart is above the law. We only have to look back to Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and numerous other cases to see that our highest court in the land does not mete out “Equal Justice Under Law.”

If the Equal Justice Society and its allies are to accomplish our mission of reclaiming the 14th Amendment and its protections against discrimination, we must be able to argue our cases before impartial justices who do not reflexively rule against the interests of average Americans.

Let’s connect the dots:

“Wal-Mart Gets a Free Pass For Bias From the Supreme Court” — “The Supreme Court issued its decision in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination case [Monday], a frustrating ruling that doesn’t challenge the existence of bias, but that exempts the company from accountability” wrote Rinku Sen on Colorlines.com. “The case highlights the difficulty of addressing discrimination at a time when intentional bias is both illegal and socially unacceptable, and yet obvious gender and racial gaps remain.”

Our friends at the Impact Fund and Equal Rights Advocates are continuing the fight. But like the Citizens United decision, the Dukes decision demonstrates that the Supreme Court will favor corporations over people and business interests over civil rights.

Eva Paterson ties together the problems with the courts. — EJS President Eva Paterson joined Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) and Carl Pope (Sierra Club) on a panel organized by Alliance for Justice at last week’s Netroots Nation to address the growing influence of corporations within the American judicial system, particularly in the Supreme Court. Watch the video.

And on top of the high court’s pattern of decisions, we see growing concern over ethics.

“Clarence Thomas participated in a secret political fundraising event put on by the Koch brothers to fund Tea Party infrastructure groups.” — A June 19 exposé in The New York Times detailed Justice Clarence Thomas’s ties to a conservative donor, his lack of disclosure in receiving gifts, and donations given to the Justice’s wife to fund a Tea Party-related group. From the NYT article: “The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period,” said Arn Pearson, a lawyer with Common Cause. “If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action.”

In April, Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Justice Antonin Scalia’s son was a partner in the firm representing Wal-Mart. Egelko describes the convoluted way in which Justice Scalia was able to escape an obligation to recuse himself from the case, but it demonstrates the need for more attention to the matter of judicial ethics.

It’s time that we work together to restore the Supreme Court to a level playing field with impartial referees so that our efforts to reclaim the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional protections against discrimination can someday be fairly heard.

Protecting the 14th Amendment
By Eva Paterson
Huffington Post

For almost 150 years, the 14th Amendment has been the backbone of civil rights law in America. Its protection of individual rights for all — from freed slaves to immigrants to workers fighting against race discrimination — has made this amendment an honorary member of the Bill of Rights.

No wonder it is under attack.

In recent months, Republican Senators and state legislators have sought the public spotlight by calling for an end to the amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. If a child’s parents are not documented, they shout, that child should not be allowed to be a citizen. If they had their way, they would roll back a U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, decided more than a century ago.

If this is what the enemies of the 14th Amendment are doing in the spotlight, imagine what they are doing behind the scenes to eviscerate the measure. Those who want to turn the clock back on civil rights also are trying to undo the Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, making it virtually impossible for victims of discrimination to find justice in our courts. Read more.

A recent decision handed down by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raises this important question: Can victims of contemporary forms of discrimination and disparity find justice in our courts?

The court ruling came in the case of Sylvia Darensburg, an African-American mother of three who lives in East Oakland. Every day, along with tens of thousands of low-income African-American, Asian and Latino bus riders in the Bay Area, Sylvia experiences the reality of transit inequality.

According to the case, Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Sylvia relies on the AC Transit bus system as her primary means of transportation to her job during the day and to college classes at night. She endures long waits for the two buses she needs to take, with each trip taking an hour or more each way. On her way home at night, she has to walk 12 blocks from the nearest bus stop in her neighborhood.

Sylvia is not alone in making such an arduous journey—almost 80 percent of AC Transit riders are people of color, and over 70 percent have incomes below $30,000. Nearly 60 percent are entirely dependent on public transit. Click here to read the article.