Our Rights, Our Future

Further Adventures in Campaign Finance

Last month, the Supreme Court decided it would hear another set of cases that deal with campaign spending and freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The two lawsuits, McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, concern a new Arizona law that provides public funding to candidates underfunded in local elections. According to the Brennan Center, which will be defending the law in the Supreme Court, the voters of Arizona passed the “clean elections” law in response to a series of corruption scandals that involved an elected official stuffing money into a gym bag. The Act established a voluntary public financing system for legislative and statewide executive political elections. John McComish, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC and others claim that their freedom of speech is violated by the section of the law that provides additional money to candidates facing high spending opposition. While a federal appeals court upheld the “clean elections” law in April, the Supreme Court elected in June to put enforcement of the law on hold pending further review.

Along the lines of the landmark ruling in Citizens United earlier this year, the arguments in these cases are highly polarized. Those who have sued to challenge the laws assert that donating money in support of a political candidate is a First Amendment right and that the government should not tamper with or otherwise invalidate the private will. At the other side of the spectrum, “Arizona lawmakers have argued there is a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.” And many people are worried more generally about the influence of money in elections and are concerned about corporate interests allowing some candidates to outspend their opposition.

As ever, stay tuned.

(Photo by Indiana Public Media.)

NCRCR Interview Series: AT&T Mobility v. Concepción

Tricia Perry of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights spoke with Suzette Malveaux of Catholic University of America about the AT&T Mobility v. Concepción case on class action arbitration in California. Listen in as they discuss the significant impact this ruling may have on our access to justice, civil rights and consumer protections.

California DREAMing

As the Senate prepares to vote on the DREAM Act, there's rarely a day that those of us here at NCRCR don't find ourselves thinking about the intersections between race, class, nationality and legal status and how these issues are addressed in the courts. As such, the issues faced by undocumented students trying to get an education are of particular interest. Through no act of their own (and more often than not an act of economic desperation on the part of their parents), thousands of smart and talented young people graduate high school in the U.S. each year and, because of their immigration status, find themselves ineligible for the federal loans that “finance” the college educations of their documented peers. To make matters worse, several states have passed laws making these undocumented students ineligible for the “in-state” reduced tuition rate at public universities and colleges available to legal residents of the state. Because these undocumented students’ families usually do not have the means to throw down $20-40,000 per year on tuition, the students hit a dead-end, ostensibly ensuring their inability to enter an increasingly competitive job market in what is, in some cases, the only country they have ever known.

There are laws that make this situation questionable: Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution promises the equal protection of a state's laws to any person within that state’s jurisdiction and allows the courts to enforce the principle that “all men are created equal.” In support of this constitutional right, the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe that undocumented immigrants were entitled to a free and equal K-12 public education. This key ruling was based on the premise that everyone, regardless of immigration status, has the right to an education. With this decision states could no longer withhold a state-funded, public primary and secondary education to undocumented children. When it comes to college, however, no effort has been made to address this issue on a federal level, and the battle over access to an affordable college education for undocumented students is being fought in the courts. In a recent victory for these students, the California state Supreme Court ruled that undocumented students who attended at least three years of high school in California must be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities. This can amount to a difference of up to $12,000 per year, which certainly makes trying to get a college education less daunting. Nine other states have similar legislation, though lawsuits are pending in two states in order to challenge these laws -- but each ruling in favor of such laws adds legitimacy to the right of all young people in the U.S. to get a quality and affordable education.

If the DREAM Act passes, undocumented students will also have a pathway to pursue U.S. citizenship after graduating from college or a trade school. As ever, progress is gradual and the courts continue to play an important role in ensuring that progress is made.

(Photo by Gord McKenna.)