On February 27, 2017, the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee reported favorably on Senate Bill No. 677 (with amendments). The original bill, passed by the New Jersey Senate in June 2016, required racial and ethnic impact statements for any legislative measure that affects pretrial detention, sentencing, probation, or parole policies concerning adults or children. The version recently reported out of committee somewhat expanded these requirements.
Racial impact statement laws have previously been enacted in Connecticut, Iowa, and Oregon, and similar legislation has recently been introduced by lawmakers in Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. [Read More]
Our civil rights laws are designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of certain traits. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in employment. Title VI of that same Act prohibits any entity that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race. And Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex from any entity that receives federal funds. But what does it mean that these laws prohibit “discrimination?” [Read More]
Robert Driscoll has an outstanding post up at National Review Online titled “This is What a Trump Civil Rights Agenda Could Look Like.”
Like many libertarians and limited government conservatives, I had significant concerns about Trump’s temperament and fitness to lead. Nevertheless, Trump has been duly elected President, and all of us must hope that he governs wisely for the good of the country. With luck, he will surround himself with cool heads who will help him flesh out a pragmatic conservative governing agenda. Driscoll’s advice is very much in that vein. Nonetheless, I have some disagreements and a few thoughts of my own to add. [Read More]
In a recent ad,the State Bar of Texas announced that it is accepting applications for an open position on its Board of Directors. As required by Texas law, however, the State Bar is refusing to consider any attorney who is not “female, African-American, Hispanic-American, Native American, or Asian-American.”
On Monday, Greg Gegenheimer, a family-law attorney in Austin, filed a civil-rights suit against the State Bar in the Western District of Texas. Mr. Gegenheimer, a white male, alleges that the State Bar is violating the Equal Protection Clause by excluding him from consideration for the open position based on his race and sex. Mr. Gegenheimer’s lawsuit is being supported by the Project on Fair Representation, the organization that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.
In my first blog post discussing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ new report on conflicts between nondiscrimination norms and religious liberty, I briefly discussed the roots of this conflict. I also noted that the Commission’s progressive majority (the Commission has a total of eight members, six of whom are progressives and two of whom are conservatives) have resoundingly resolved this conflict in favor of nondiscrimination. [Read More]