Staff Updates: Sara Jackson, Claudia Peña and Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon
EJS is delighted to announce that, as of May 1, Sara Jackson, our 2007-8 Motley Fellow and National Network Coordinator, has been promoted to the position of Staff Attorney.
Sara has been doing extraordinary work as our liaison to the Impact209 Coalition in California and as our contact to the national and state coalitions combating anti-affirmative action initiatives. The Staff Attorney position is a new position for EJS made possible by the recent grant from the Kellogg Foundation.
Our 2008-9, Motley Fellow, Claudia Pena, engaged in developing legal research regarding the intent doctrine and alliance building efforts, assisting the development of the rapid response network (re ICE raids). Both Sara and Claudia are graduates of UCLA Law School and its Critical Race Studies Department.
We have also had two dedicated interns this past semester: Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon, a 3L from Boalt (Berkeley Law) where she is also a participant in the EJS Scholar Advocate program with the Thelton Henderson Center for Social Justice and Audrey Daniel, a graduating 3L from Golden Gate University School of Law.
EJS Continues its Work to Expand Equal Opportunity
By Sara Jackson
The Equal Justice Society continues its efforts to challenge Proposition 209, and advocate for the continued importance of equal opportunity policies and programs.
Over the past several months, EJS and the Impact 209 Coalition collaborated with Drew Westen of Westen Strategies and Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners to conduct messaging and polling research regarding Californian’s feelings about diversity, inclusion and affirmative action.
Although the results evidenced a wide range of opinions and some mixed feelings, they also indicated general appreciation of California’s diversity, and some willingness to support programs aimed at expanding opportunities for marginalized groups.
In the coming year, we hope to conduct further polling to assess the viability of amending or repealing Proposition 209 (which outlaws equal opportunity policies and programs in the state, and has been in effect since 1996), and utilize our current messaging results to support efforts to expand equal opportunity programs across the country.
EJS also played an integral role in persuading Attorney General Jerry Brown to publicly declare Proposition 209 unconstitutional.
Attorney General Brown was asked by the California Supreme Court to advise them about the constitutionality of Prop 209, in response to a case involving the validity of outreach programs designed to expand opportunities for women and minority owned businesses (Coral Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco).
Under the leadership of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), EJS helped draft and submit a letter to the Attorney General outlining why 209 is unconstitutional, and the harm it has wrought to women and communities of color across California.
For instance, enrollment of Black, Latino and Native American students in the UC system has declined dramatically since Proposition 209 passed, and contracting dollars awarded to Women and Minority owned businesses have also decreased significantly.
In addition to submitting this letter, representatives from LCCR and EJS met with the Attorney General to press upon him the import and timeliness of this decision, particularly in light of the increasing diversity of our state. Ultimately, Attorney General Brown concluded that Proposition 209, through prohibiting all affirmative action, ultimately fosters the discrimination it was intended to eliminate – and should overturned to the extent that it is more restrictive than US Supreme Court precedent on affirmative action.
This holding was an enormous victory for EJS, our civil rights allies, and for women and communities of color in California. We’ll be watching closely as the Court hears oral arguments on this case next month!
Finally, EJS is working with the Fulfilling the Dream Fund (FDF) to convene an Equal Opportunity Strategy Session to help determine next steps for national advocates of race conscious laws and policies.
In 2008, EJS helped bring together a network of grassroots and national advocacy organizations to prevent Ward Connerly from passing anti-affirmative action initiatives in five states across the country. Now that the 2008 election cycle is over, and a new administration is in place, EJS is working with these organizational allies to map a proactive agenda for supporting and expanding equal opportunity policies and programs and productively talking about race and opportunity in America.
EJS Files Amicus Briefs in Several Supreme Court Cases
By Kimberly Thomas Rapp and Claudia Peña
The U.S. Supreme Court this term is hearing a number of cases that may have important implications for maintaining and advancing civil rights in the years ahead. EJS has partnered with colleagues around the country to file amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs in several matters.
Ricci v. DeStefano
In the 1976 Washington v. Davis case, black police officers and recruits sued the Metropolitan Police Department in the District of Columbia for violation of their equal protection rights. The black officers alleged that an employment test effected unconstitutionally disparate results resulting in their exclusion from further employment consideration with the police department. The Supreme Court determined then that a showing of disparate impact alone was insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail without proof of the police department’s racially discriminatory motivation.
Now, more than 30 years later in Ricci v. DeStefano, it is the white firefighters who have sued the New Haven Fire Department in Connecticut for violation of their rights under equal protection and Title VII. The white firefighters allege that the fire department inappropriately failed to certify the results of an employment test that disparately excluded black firefighters from further employment consideration.
EJS provided technical support on contemporary discrimination to our friends at the Opportunity Agenda on its amicus brief in support of the City of New Haven. The Opportunity Agenda, with the assistance of Ankur Goel, Kelly Falls, and Amy Granger of McDermott, Will & Emory, LLP., argued that investigating and responding to disparate outcomes is an essential part of identifying discriminatory practices and ensuring equal opportunity. Further, the brief argued that attending to disparate outcomes is particularly important when addressing hidden and structural biases.
Additionally, EJS joined the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, National Urban League and the NAACP, in filing a brief in support of the City of New Haven. The brief, drafted by Michael Foreman of the Pennsylvania State University School of Law and John Brittain and Sarah Crawford of the Lawyers’ Committee, argued that acting with a consciousness of race does not always result in a racial classification under law or trigger strict scrutiny.
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder
The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to enforce and protect the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” and grants Congress enforcement power. Because so many Southern states deployed literacy tests and other pretexts to prevent blacks from voting, in the 1960s (after having ignored it for quite some time) the federal government began to secure court orders against such practices.
Election official would then conceive of new barriers until finally the Voting Rights Act was passed including Section 5. The section is a pre-clearance which requires state and local governments deemed to have historically suppressed people of color votes to obtain approval from the Justice Department before altering any election practices. Nine states are fully covered by Section 5 as well as certain cities and counties in seven other states.
The case before the Supreme Court this session involves a local utility board member who wanted to move a polling booth from someone’s garage to the local elementary school. In attempting to realize this change, he found out that the state of Texas falls under Section 5 and he would need authorization from the Department of Justice to move the polling booth. Thus, he has opted to challenge Section 5 and alleged it is unconstitutional.
There are major racial implications to this case. EJS signed on to the amicus curiae brief of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and The LCCR Education Fund. The brief argued that the gains in minority political participation can be reversed if we fail to vigilantly protect such advancements. Additionally, Congress’ recent determination that Section 5 protections are still necessary in certain jurisdictions was reasonable and well considered given the overwhelming evidence offered during hearings.
Supreme Court Spotlight: Litigation Strategies in the Roberts Court Era
Since its founding, EJS has been working with allies to counter the conservative right-wing imbalance in the courts that has limited the reach of antidiscrimination law and undermined civil rights policy.
As a part of this effort, we continue to collaborate with Supreme Court litigators, general counsels and attorneys of legal services organizations, policy advocates, communications experts, law professors and other advocates to share information, strategize and coordinate approaches to short- and long-term litigation strategies, policy development and public education.
In January, EJS co-hosted with Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine School of Law, its most recent convening on Litigation Strategies in the Roberts Court Era. EJS Board members and legal strategists, James Brosnahan, Anthony Solana and Tobias Barrington Wolff participated.
We were also joined by Elliot Mincberg of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary and colleagues from around the country from organizations such as National Senior Citizens Law Center, Constitutional Accountability Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, MALDEF, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, National Health Law Program, Center for Reproductive Rights, Lamda Legal, Legal Services of Northern California, Disability Rights and Education Fund, and many other important allies.
Together, we discussed the future of federal courts and agencies, litigation and decision trends in the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court, future litigation to improve antidiscrimination protections, pending and future legislation, and communications strategies.
Attorney General Holder’s Remarks on Black History Month
Attorney General Eric Holder’s remarks yesterday on Black History Month provoked divided reactions. Below is the full text of his remarks as prepared for delivery. Eric Ethridge of The New York Times provides a roundup.
ERIC HOLDER: Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time and deal with the other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.
Tonight: Thelton Henderson Film by Abby Ginzberg on KQED
Our friend Abby Ginzberg made this documentary about our friend and hero, the amazing Judge Thelton Henderson. It airs tonight, Feb. 17, at 11 p.m. PT on KQED. We hope you’ll watch it. Visit soulofjustice.org for more information on the film.
Robert Borosage: Progressives Need to Push the Senate on Stimulus Bill
EJS works with many other groups to push a progressive vision for America and the world. On Tuesday, we were part of a call to discuss unconscious racial bias and the current political scene.
Before the call started we were kibitzing about the economic stimulus plan and how progressive folks might get involved. Robert Borosage gave us his perspective on what should be done. His analysis follows. As you will read, he feels that three Republican Senators are key to this effort.
Visit OurFuture.org to take action and also call these Senators and ask them to restore the cuts to the stimulus bill:
- Sen. Arlen Specter - 202-224-4254
- Sen. Olympia J. Snowe - (202) 224-5344
- Sen. Susan M. Collins - (202) 224-2523
Here’s Robert Borosage’s analysis:
