2011 in Review: A Six-Year Court Battle Over Voting Rights Education

Many Pennsylvanians, including some parole and probation officers, are not aware that ex-offenders retain their right to vote. Thanks to an ACLU-PA court victory, Pittsburgh buses will soon carry advertisements informing people of the truth.

Pennsylvania law allows ex-offenders to vote once they are released from prison, even if they are still on parole - but confusion about this law leads to misunderstanding and misinformation, and many eligible voters are denied their right to vote, or assume they will be turned away. When the ACLU-PA and Pittsburgh League of Young Voters partnered to promote awareness of ex-offender rights, the Pittsburgh Port Authority turned away their ads.

In August,the Third Circuit ruled the Port Authority violated the First Amendment. Although the Port Authority claimed the ads violated policy, the court held that rejection was based on the message. After six years of legal battles, we finally have the opportunity to educate Pittsburgh bus riders that ex-offenders have the right to vote.  We hope to run the ad on Port Authority buses in advance of the October 9 registration deadline for the 2012 general election. Equally important, this decision establishes precedent protecting freedom of speech from government censorship in public forums.  

Read more »

Let the courts decide?

PA State Senators are avoiding their obligation to be the first line of defense for the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

On Wednesday, the State Senate passed Senate Bill 1, the taxpayer-funded private school vouchers bill, by a slim majority, 27-22. Its opponents have a litany of concerns with the bill and the harm it could cause to education in Pennsylvania. One of their most serious concerns is that the bill would almost certainly violate the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But unfortunately, Senators supporting the bill have decided to punt the issue to judges. They plan to enact SB 1 without considering whether it contradicts the Commonwealth’s constitution. 

SB 1 would create a program through which the state would provide vouchers to students at Pennsylvania’s lowest performing schools. They could use these vouchers to pay to attend a private school. According to Senator Anthony Williams, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, and the Senate Republicans’ fiscal analysis, no more than about 10% of students at these schools would likely participate and receive vouchers. The money for the vouchers would come directly out of the budgets of the school districts that students were leaving. 

The constitutional problems with the bill arise from the provisions about where vouchers can be spent. Families that receive vouchers can use them to pay to attend any private school—including a religious private school. SB 1 does not require that the voucher funds do not help pay for religious instruction. 

Pennsylvania’s constitution could not be much clearer that the legislature is not allowed to pass a law like this one. A legal analysis by ten state and national organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Education Law Center, and the Pennsylvania State Education Association, concluded that SB 1 would violate no fewer than four separate provisions of the state constitution. For example, Article III, Section 15 commands, “No money raised for the support of the public schools shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school”. Despite the constitutional command, SB 1 takes money used for public schools and uses it to pay for vouchers to attend sectarian schools. There is little room for doubt: SB 1, if it became law, would be unconstitutional. 

So why are legislators spending their time trying to pass it? Senator Jim Ferlo of Pittsburgh asked that question at the Senate Education Committee’s meeting on October 24. Senator Williams’ responded that the legislature should pass the bill and let the courts decide whether it is constitutional or not. After all, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the final authority for the meaning of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

But the senator left out a critical point: the Supreme Court is not the only authority responsible for protecting Pennsylvania’s constitution. 

Every legislator, before taking office, swore, “I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth". This oath is written into the Pennsylvania Constitution, and it is the same oath that judges take. It means that legislators have a duty to try not to pass laws that will violate the constitution and undermine the legal foundations of the Commonwealth. 

Yes, the justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania are the last line of defense for the state constitution. But the legislators are the first.  

Nathan Vogel, Frankel Legislative Fellow, ACLU of PA  

Cross-posted at RocktheCapital.com

Greetings from Harrisburg! Summer break edition

The legislature has left Harrisburg for the summer. Civil liberties are safe! Find out what went down in the mad legislative rush this week as the General Assembly finished the state budget.

Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

Greetings from Harrisburg: school vouchers, LGBT non-discrimination, and HIV testing

There were just two days of session this week at the state capitol in Harrisburg. Check out the latest update, including news on taxpayer-funded school vouchers, LGBT non-discrimination, and HIV testing.

Keep Pennsylvania Kids in School

Last week, the Dignity in Schools Campaign (DSC) released its National Resolution for Ending School Pushouts. What is "school pushout," and why is it a national problem? Many students are pushed out of schools by harsh disciplinary practices that favor exclusionary strategies like the over-use of suspension and expulsion, and create unwelcoming environments for students. When young people — often those who need the most support — are pushed out of school, they essentially lose their right to an education.

The resolution is a call to action for our school systems. It is an attempt to reframe the debate about school climate and discipline from one that favors the punishment and exclusion of children to one based on human rights.

I don't normally get too excited by bold statements about social problems. This one feels different, though. The National Resolution for Ending School Pushout is not an empty statement, but a call for a real change in our schools. The resolution goes beyond decrying the trend toward pushout to propose positive steps that can be taken to help make it possible for young people to remain on track to complete their education.

For those of us deeply engaged in work in Pennsylvania's schools, the resolution could not be released at a more critical moment. In October of 2008, the school district of Philadelphia adopted a "zero tolerance" policy under which expulsions have escalated dramatically.

Across the state, approximately 30,000 students are placed in more than 600 "alternative education for disruptive youth" programs each year. Relatively little is known about these individual programs and the experiences of the students in them.

In Philadelphia, many students are transferred to alternative schools without an opportunity to contest the charges against them. Many wait for up to six months for a decision to be made about their future. Some are ultimately exonerated, but by that time, they have been out of their regular schools for so long that catching up is difficult if not impossible. In the 2008-09 school year, 193 expulsion hearings were held, up from zero in the previous year; 166 students were ultimately expelled by the School Reform Commission (our school board). The current school year began with 90 students in limbo awaiting hearings from last school year.

The resolution calls for a different approach to creating peaceful and respectful environment in schools. It urges schools to adopt proven alternative disciplinary approaches such as positive behavior supports and restorative practices. Furthermore, it urges that the rights of students, parents and guardians be treated with respect in all school processes.

Finally, the resolution calls on public officials and school administrators to provide teachers and school staff with the support needed to bring about these changes.

One thing is certain: keeping young people engaged with school is the best thing we as a society can do.


Harold in Philadelphia