Category Archive

A Luncheon Discussion on Civil Rights When:Wednesday, May 22, 202412:00 – 2:00 PM ET Where:The Mayflower Hotel1127 Connecticut Ave NWWashington, DC 20036 Cost:This event is free to attend.Registration is required.Lunch will be provided. The event will be livestreamed onThe Federalist Society YouTube channel. Registration is not required to view the livestream. On July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson after having overcome one of the fiercest and longest filibusters in the history of the United States Senate. The new law marked an historic victory for civil rights activists seeking equal opportunity …

Today the Supreme Court of the United States ended its 2020-2021 term by issuing its last two opinions in cases that the Center for Equal Opportunity joined in filing amicus briefs. I am happy to report that in both cases—one involving voting rights and the other privacy for donors to non-profit organizations—the Supreme Court sided with CEO! In the voting rights case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court considered both whether an Arizona policy which rejects ballots outside of a voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and whether Arizona’s law which permits only certain persons …

This article originally appeared on TheBulwark on July 8, 2021 Voting rights are alive and well in the United States—but that doesn’t mean we don’t have work to do to ensure they remain so. The 2020 election, held in the middle of a catastrophic pandemic, nonetheless saw higher voter participation rates than any election since 1908. Blacks voted in historically high numbers, especially in eight battleground states, though not quite as high as they did in 2008 and 2012 when the first black president was on the ballot. For the first time, a majority of eligible Hispanic voters also voted …

Late last week the Center for Equal Opportunity filed an appellate amicus brief supporting the state of Florida in a case that challenges the state’s procedure for reenfranchising felons only on a case-by-case basis after they have appeared before a state board.   Below are a few excerpts from last week’s brief, which is available below for download.  By the way, CEO has filed dozens of amicus briefs on our issues — opposing racial preferences, criticizing the “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement, and so forth — as the brief last week explains.  INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Center for Equal …

George Will asks, “What compelling government interest is served by felon disenfranchisement?” Here’s the answer: If you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote — either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). Mr. Will says that it “is not a legitimate government objective for elected officials” to “fine-tune the quality of the electorate.” Really? That would mean that not only criminals but also children, non-citizens, and the …

A few weeks ago I wrote at weeklystandard.com about an obscure free speech matter. It concerns something called the Johnson Amendment. See, I said it was obscure. By Terry Eastland   In case you haven’t finished reading the 429-page House Republicans tax bill, go to pages 427 and 428 to see what it proposes to do regarding the Johnson Amendment. Passed in 1954 and named for its chief sponsor, Senator Lyndon Johnson, the amendment prohibits politicking by tax-exempt nonprofits, including churches and other religious institutions. Under the Republicans’ proposal, pastors and other religious leaders would be free to endorse candidates from the …

Last week the New York Times ran my response to an editorial it had written.  The editorial had condemned felon disenfranchisement in the course of praising a recent Alabama bill, and here is my response: I have no quarrel with Alabama’s decision to define better which crimes should lead to disenfranchisement, and I agree with your editorial than some parts of its line-drawing make more sense than others, but it is wrong to say all felon disenfranchisement laws are “racist, pointless, anti-democratic shams.” If a particular law is shown to be racist, the Supreme Court ruled long ago that it …

Last week I participated in a Federalist Society discussion on voting issues, and pointed out there the policy and constitutional problems with Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act. That statute requires some jurisdictions to print ballots and offer election­-related materials in foreign languages. As a constitutional matter, this provision raises serious federalism concerns and equally serious concerns about Congress exceeding its authority to enforce the right to vote regardless of race. Its constitutionality aside, this provision is also objectionable on a variety of policy grounds. I thought that I would use this week’s email to elaborate on all …

The Center for Equal Opportunity has been busy of late with Nebraska — and, specifically, with urging its governor to veto a bill that would automatically allow felons to vote the day they walked out of prison. We wrote directly to the governor, for example, and also published this in the state’s largest newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald: No automatic felon enfranchisement Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts should veto the bill that would automatically restore the right to vote for felons when they walk out of prison (“Ricketts won’t sign bill on felon voting rights,” April 26 World-Herald). If you aren’t willing …