The ACLU of Oregon is Out Of Order

David Goldberger would be appalled to see how the ACLU of Oregon has gone astray.

In 1977, he argued one of ACLU’s most controversial cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

I thought of him when I came across this Tweet from ACLU of Oregon last night:

ACLU of Oregon⁦@ACLU_OR⁩

📨We were back at it again today, dropping off pink slips to absentee senators. Hundreds of you have completed the form and told your legislators to get back to work! 💥We’ll keep making more pink slip deliveries. Visit bit.ly/42C5rtf to send one! pic.twitter.com/SoOasQB4UB5/18/23, 3:05 PM

In 2021, the New York Times reported on a luncheon celebrating Goldberger’s career . Goldberger was dismayed to hear a law professor argue that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the ACLU. He was also disturbed by an ACLU official’s argument that it was legitimate for the organization’s lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged. “I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” Goldberger told the NY Times. 

I have the same concern about the ACLU of Oregon, which has gone astray in furtherance of a progressive political agenda and become, like the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, a wing of the Democratic Party..

The ACLU of Oregon was a key player in securing voter approval of Measure 113 that proposed disqualifying legislators from re-election following the end of their term if they are absent from 10 legislative floor sessions without permission or excuse.

Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, often refuse to hear a case if they find an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. 

Cornell Law School cites  Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918) as one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying the political question doctrine,. In that case, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. As such, the Court found that cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power present political questions. Thus, the Court held that it cannot preside over these issues. 

The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive and/or the Legislative branch.

In the same context, the ACLU of Oregon is out of order inserting itself so aggressively in the political maelstrom of a Democratic effort to prevent legislative walkouts by Republicans from interfering with the Democrats’ agenda.

Trying to justify its support for Ballot Measure 113 before its approval by voters, the ACLU of Oregon argued: “Democracy is diminished when our political system does not address repeated gamesmanship and the continued manipulation of technical rules such quorum requirements, or repeated threats of this type, for the purpose of gaining a political advantage.”

The ACLU of Oregon thinks it should get involved in a ballot measure because it is concerned about “gamesmanship” and “manipulations of technical rules”. Talk about a political issue.

So now perfectly legal maneuvering by a political party to thwart proposals by another party diminishes democracy so severely that it’s acceptable to prohibit the re-election of sitting legislators?

And it’s OK for the ACLU of Oregon to blatantly encourage Oregonians to harass legislators who go against the Democrats’ agenda with “pink slips”?

The ACLU of Oregon has gone way over the line.

What Were They Thinking? Multnomah County’s Non-Citizen Voting Proposal

The election’s over, and Measure 26-231, an appalling proposal to let non-citizens vote in Multnomah County, lost 52.79% – 47.21%. But the fact it even got on the ballot should worry us all. 

What in heaven’s name would have propelled a group of citizens to advocate undermining their constitutional rights with such an alarming proposal? And the fact the measure got 163,163 votes is a distressing reminder that the idea of non-citizen voting is in danger of being normalized.

We need to stop pretending like this is okay or normal because it’s not,”  Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said earlier this year, Non-citizen voting is explicitly un-American and disrespectful to those who fought and died for the preservation of our freedoms and democracy.”

A Charter Review Committee appointed by state senators and representatives who represent districts in Multnomah County initiated the proposal. 

The committee members, all appropriately listing  their She/Her, She/They, They/Them, He/Him pronouns on the committee’s website, were a cabal of overzealous progressives akin to a left-leaning social justice advocacy non-profit intent on remaking the body politic to advance their agenda.

Samantha Gladu (She/They) was described as“…committed to addressing power inequities by building representative and progressive anti-racist leadership.” 

Ana I. González Muñoz (She/Her)…works at Latino Network as the Director of Community Engagement & Leadership Development” and her “… professional and personal commitment revolves around serving her community to advocate for equity, inclusion, and social justice.” 

Jude Perez (They/Them)“…is the Grants Manager at Seeding Justice…an organization that practices community-led grantmaking to distribute funds to grassroots groups that are working towards long-term, systemic solutions, and community-centered strategies to dismantle oppression in Oregon.”

The civic groups that supported the measure[1] deserve to be admonished as well. 

The ACLU of Oregon made the illogical argument that the measure advanced its commitment to the civil liberties and civil rights fundamental to our democracy, ignoring the fact it would mean one less benefit to be gained from becoming a citizen and erode  the integrity of America’s  democracy,

The Oregon Food Bank exceeded its mandate when it endorsed Measure 26-231 because it would “extend voting rights to more local residents who are affected by county policies.”

Measure 26-231 was not just an example of progressive overreach, but of moral rot. It was a sign not of appreciation, but of contempt, for liberal democracy. At its root, it was a progressive attempt to enlarge their base.

The idea made a mockery of citizenship, removing the long-standing linkage between the responsibilities of citizenship and voting rights. 

Before the Nov. 8 election, Ricardo Lujan-Valerio, a policy director to Portland City Commissioner Carmen Rubio and former policy associate at ACLU of Oregon, told OPB he estimated the committee’s proposal “…could potentially affect up to 100,000 people if the final definition of ‘noncitizen’ includes the roughly 22,000 undocumented residents living in Portland.” It’s not clear if that estimate included not just undocumented people in the county illegally, but also people admitted to the US legally, but not yet US citizens.  

That many non-citizens added to Multnomah County’s voting rolls would have resulted in a substantial dilution of the power of the county’s citizen voters.

Justice Ralph J. Porzio, a State Supreme Court justice on New York City’s Staten Island, raised the dilution issue when, on June 27, 2022, he struck down a law that would have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections in New York City, saying it violated the State Constitution.

“This Court finds that the registration of new voters will certainly affect voters, political parties, candidate’s campaigns, re-elections, and the makeup of their constituency and is not speculative.,” the judge said in his ruling. “The weight of the citizens’ vote will be diluted by municipal voters and candidates and political parties alike will need to reconfigure their campaigns. Though the Plaintiffs have not suffered any harm today, the harm they will suffer is imminent, and it is reasonably certain that they will suffer their claimed harm if the proposed municipal voters are entitled to vote.”

“Voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure…The addition of 800,000 to 1,000,000 non-eligible votes into municipal elections significantly devalues the votes of the New York citizens who have lawfully and meaningfully earned the right to vote pursuant to constitutional requirements.”

The Charter Review Committee’s non-citizen voting proposal would have devalued the votes of citizens in Multnomah County and run counter to the values of our constitutional republic. May it rest in peace.

 

 


[1] ACLU of Oregon; Adelante Mujeres; APANO (Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon); Center for Migration, Gender, and Justice; Coalition of Communities of Color; IRCO (Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization); Latino Network; Next Up; Oregon Food Bank; Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice.

Say No to Non-Citizen Voting in Multnomah County

The proposal by Multnomah County’s Charter Review Committee to allow non-citizens to vote in county elections is a sign not just of progressive overreach, but of moral rot.

It is a sign not of appreciation, but of contempt, for liberal democracy.

The idea makes a mockery of citizenship, removing the long-standing linkage between the responsibilities of citizenship and voting rights. And while the idea might appeal to the rabid left, it’s likely to alienate the broad middle whose support will be essential if the Committee’s entire reform package is to be approved.

Just as unrestricted immigration to the United States was once standard and legal voting by noncitizens was once common in as many as 40 states, limitations or prohibitions in both arenas have been in place for almost 100 years. In that same vein, federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures(including independent expenditures) and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any federal, state or local election.

The Charter Review Committee members, all appropriately listing their She/Her, She/They, They/Them, He/Him pronouns on the committee’s website, are essentially a cabal of overzealous progressives intent on remaking the body politic to advance their agenda.

A review of the committee’s membership, who are appointed are appointed by state senators and representatives who represent districts in Multnomah County, reveals an organization more akin to a left-leaning social justice advocacy non-profit than a county charter review body.

Samantha Gladu (She/They), for example, is described as “…committed to addressing power inequities by building representative and progressive anti-racist leadership.” Ana I. González Muñoz (She/Her)…works at Latino Network as the Director of Community Engagement & Leadership Development” and her … professional and personal commitment revolves around serving her community to advocate for equity, inclusion, and social justice.” Jude Perez (They/Them) “…is the Grants Manager at Seeding Justice…an organization that practices community-led grantmaking to distribute funds to grassroots groups that are working towards long-term, systemic solutions, and community-centered strategies to dismantle oppression in Oregon.”

While they and the other committee members unanimously supported the effort to legitimize and implement non-citizen voting and have expressed lofty theoretical sentiments for its adoption, beneath the surface it is little more than a power grab, an effort to further the political fortunes of specific ethnic groups. 

As Ronald Hayduck, a professor at San Francisco State University who endorses non-citizen voting, has written, for allies it is important to drive “home the potential benefits of non-citizens to forge progressive political majorities.”

The practical downsides of non-citizen voting are rarely mentioned. 

When a spokesman for the New York City Law Department told the Wall Street Journal the New York ruling “… is a disappointing court ruling for people who value bringing in thousands more New Yorkers into the democratic process,” he inadvertently revealed a major problem with allowing non-citizen voting. 

Ricardo Lujan-Valerio, a policy director to Portland City Commissioner Carmen Rubio and former policy associate at ACLU of Oregon, told OPB he estimated the committee’s proposal “…could potentially affect up to 100,000 people if the final definition of ‘noncitizen’ includes the roughly 22,000 undocumented residents living in Portland.” It’s not clear if that estimate includes not just undocumented people in the county illegally, but also people admitted to the US legally, but not yet US citizens.  

That many non-citizens added to Multnomah County’s voting rolls could result in a substantial dilution of the power of the county’s citizen voters.

Justice Ralph J. Porzio, a State Supreme Court justice on New York City’s Staten Island, raised the dilution issue when, on June 27, 2022, he struck down a law that would have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections in New York City, saying it violated the State Constitution.

“This Court finds that the registration of new voters will certainly affect voters, political parties, candidate’s campaigns, re-elections, and the makeup of their constituency and is not speculative.,” the judge said in his ruling. “The weight of the citizens’ vote will be diluted by municipal voters and candidates and political parties alike will need to reconfigure their campaigns. Though the Plaintiffs have not suffered any harm today, the harm they will suffer is imminent, and it is reasonably certain that they will suffer their claimed harm if the proposed municipal voters are entitled to vote.”

“Voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure…The addition of 800,000 to 1,000,000 non-eligible votes into municipal elections significantly devalues the votes of the New York citizens who have lawfully and meaningfully earned the right to vote pursuant to constitutional requirements.”

Some liberal politicians may express support for non-citizen voting because they see a pool of potentially supportive voters for their re-election. But they should be careful what they wish for. 

The New York Times wrote recently about an unexpected turn of immigrants in South Texas away from leftist Democrats and toward the GOP. 

An article titled How Immigration Politics Drives Some Hispanic Voters to the G.O.P. in Texas noted:

“Democrats are destroying a Latino culture built around God, family and patriotism, dozens of Hispanic voters and candidates in South Texas said in interviews. The Trump-era anti-immigrant rhetoric of being tough on the border and building the wall has not repelled these voters from the Republican Party or struck them as anti-Hispanic bigotry. Instead, it has drawn them in.”

“Our parents came in a certain way — they came in and worked, they became citizens and didn’t ask for anything,” said Ramiro Gonzalez Jr., a 48-year-old rancher from Raymondville, on the northern edge of the Rio Grande Valley. “We were raised hard-core Democrats, but today Democrats want to give everything away.”

Republican candidates in South Texas appealing to Latinos “…are building on a decades-long history of economic, religious and cultural sentiment that has veered toward conservatives,” the story said.

CNN recently reported a similar shift, saying voters of color are backing the GOP at historic levels, with Democratic support from Asian AmericanBlackand Hispanic voters much lower than it has usually been. Part of that is because of the changing demographic makeup of voters of color. “They’re a lot more Hispanic than they used to be,” CNN said. “At the same time, they’re a lot less Black. Hispanic voters don’t support Democrats as much as Black voters.” 

Multnomah County advocates of non-citizen voting and their political allies should take heed.