News & Commentary

This content is cross-posted from aclu.org.  In March 2009, Atul Gawande wrote in the New Yorker that successful solitary reform in England had left fewer prisoners in "extreme isolation" in that entire country than in the state of Maine. Four years later, Maine has reduced the population of its solitary confinement Special Management Unit (SMU) by over 70 percent. While the sting of being singled out may have motivated some, Maine's reforms were actually the result of a seven-year effort that is documented in a new report out today from the ACLU of Maine, Change Is Possible: A Case Study Of Solitary Confinement Reform In Maine. We hope this report will serve as a useful case study of what is possible and as a model for achieving significant change across the nation. As the report describes, in addition to reducing the overall SMU population, prisoners who do end up in solitary in Maine spend less time there, are treated like human beings while confined, and are shown a clear path to reentry into the general prison population. All of this has been accomplished without compromising the safety of prison staff or other prisoners, and with significant cost and resource savings. Maine's successful reforms represent a rebuttal to everyone who declares that solitary reform cannot or should not be done. In an interview last year, Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte, who presided over the reform, told us why he believes it was the right thing to do.

For those of us who grew up in Maine, the name Margaret Chase Smith is one we’ve heard since we were little children. Her place in history is undeniable: the first woman to represent our state in Congress; the first woman from any state to serve in both the House and the Senate; and the first woman in American history to run for president for a major party.   This week, in celebration of Women’s History Month, our entire staff will be blogging about a handful of important Maine women. There are obviously too many to cover in a week, or a month, or a year, but we’ll highlight a few of our personal favorites. Smith’s legacy is so strong and her story so well known that I thought it best to highlight just one moment from her illustrious career.   On June 1, 1950, Smith rose to speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Less than four months earlier, Joe McCarthy had infamously revealed his “list of names,” and no member of Congress had yet to speak out against his anti-Communist witch hunt that was gripping the nation.   But Smith would have none of it. With McCarthy sitting just two rows behind her, she denounced his tactics (though not mentioning him by name) and offered a robust defense of the right to free speech. Only six of Smith’s colleagues signed onto her declaration, leading McCarthy to coin the term “Snow White and the Six Dwarfs.” But President Truman saw it differently, telling Smith that her speech was “one of the finest things that has happened here in Washington in all my years in the Senate and the White House.”   I encourage you to read Smith’s full speech, which she deemed her “Declaration of Conscience.” You can find it by clicking here. Much of it deals with the politics of the time. But the universal themes of civil liberties and the courageousness of the speech, especially given the moment at which it was given, are impossible to ignore. Here is my favorite passage:

Each Friday, we’ll bring you updates on the latest civil liberties news from Maine and the nation. Militarization of the Police Earlier this week, we participated in a nationwide coordinated public records requests with other ACLU affiliates to learn more about the increasing militarization of the police. Click here to read about disturbing examples of police use of military training and equipment. Zach’s blog summarizes our concerns. Voting Rights Act Before the Supreme Court Last Week the supreme court heard the case of Shelby County V. Holder--a challenge to Section V of the Voting Rights Act. Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, has her thoughts on that day here. Stephen Colbert hilariously weighs in with his take here. DOMA We hope the Supreme Court will rule in our favor on the upcoming DOMA case. Bill Clinton, the president who signed DOMA into law, concludes in this Op-Ed that DOMA is unconstitutional. We’re optimistic that Edie Winsor will find success and justice before the Supreme Court.    Reproductive Freedom This week, Arkansas passed the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, banning abortions after 12 weeks. The ACLU of Arkansas has vowed to fight the new laws in court. Read more here.   Compromise A bill proposed to address teacher concerns would have gutted recently passed Maine laws designed to protect students from unnecessary physical restraint.  However, the updated version assuages teacher concerns while leaving student protections intact. The ACLU of Maine was pleased to find solutions that protect both safety and civil liberties. Read more here.

Mainers shouldn’t have to fear that the government could use unmanned drones to spy on our homes and our backyards. Unfortunately, cheap technology and a change in the federal rules make the specter of backyard surveillance a real and terrifying possibility.   The Maine Legislature Judiciary Committee is set to vote as early as today on a bill to put meaningful limits on the use of surveillance drones and to prohibit the weaponization of domestic drones.   Read the full text of the bill here.   Take action TODAY to put meaningful limits in place, before it’s too late!    You can call the Senate at 1-800-423-6900 and the House at 1-800-423-2900. If you aren't sure who your representatives are, click here to search.

Today, the ACLU of Maine joined colleagues across the country in filing public records requests aimed at uncovering important information about the web of connections between the military and the police. We already know that, in some states, military equipment and tactics are regularly used in domestic interactions with civilians. This development has been driven by federal policies of funneling money, training, and equipment to state and local police departments. The tactics and weapons that cause us the most concern were developed for use in war zones, by soldiers who train every day to be able to use them effectively. Soldiers and police officers have radically different missions, and the skills and gear that is appropriate for one group is not necessarily right for the other. We know, for example, that a nine-year-old girl named Aiyana Jones was sleeping on the couch next to her grandmother in her Detroit, Michigan home, when a SWAT team through a "flashbang" through the window. A "flashbang" is a type of grenade that produces a deafening noise and a blinding light, and it was developed for use in wartime raids. After throwing the "flashbang," the SWAT team stormed through the door, but they became disoriented because of the light and noise. The SWAT team mistakenly shot and killed Aiyana Jones, after causing her blanket to catch on fire. We do not know what kind of equipment and tactics SWAT teams in Maine are using, and we do not know what policies or guidelines exist to prevent abuses. We do not know those things now, but we are going to find out. You can read copies of our request here, and you can read about this nationwide investigation here. 

Yesterday, I joined our partners at the NAACP and the League of Women Voters in testifying against LD 573, a proposed constitutional amendment that would strip some felons of the right to vote while incarcerated.  In Maine, as in Vermont, the right to vote is not lost upon incarceration.  LD 573 would take away that right and in so doing would erode the fabric of our democracy by decreasing voter participation and discouraging people with certain criminal convictions from maintaining a stake in their constructive reintegration into society.   Proponents argued that this bill was written narrowly to restrict the voting rights only of the worst of the worst.  Some of the testimony we heard yesterday was truly heartbreaking.  But elimination of a constitutional right is not an appropriate punishment.  Restricting voting rights does not provide due compensation to victims or to the victims’ families. Nor will restricting voting rights prevent crime. Instead, disfranchising people following their criminal conviction accomplishes exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to promote re-entry.  In fact, removing the right to vote can only diminish an inmate’s stake in society and lessen their motivation to maintain their social ties. In this way, disfranchisement of citizens with criminal convictions is actually harmful to the long-term prospects for sustainable reintegration of ex-offenders into society.  In fact, some evidence suggests that ex-offenders who vote are less likely to re-offend.   Overall, criminal disenfranchisement also has a disproportionate impact on minority communities. Across the country approximately 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote under felon disenfranchisement laws like LD 573, and almost 1 in 6 (2.23 million) are African American. Many call felony disenfranchisement laws “the new Jim Crow” because of the disproportionate impact on voting rights of people of color.  The racial disparities created by these policies are stark.    As the U.S. Supreme Court stated long ago in Yick Wo v. Hopkins,  "the political franchise of voting" is a "fundamental political right, because  [it is] preservative of all rights."   It is no accident that the goal of LD 573 cannot be achieved simply through the passage of legislation, but would require an amendment to the Maine Constitution.   Here in Maine we should be exceptionally proud that our State Constitution is not as restrictive as those of some other states that burden the right to vote with various requirements that have the effect of limiting civic participation.   And it is exactly because the right to vote is as unburdened as it is by virtue of our State Constitution that we should proceed with the utmost care and caution lest we do anything to restrict it.   Finally, it should be noted that over the past few decades, there has been a broad national trend of adopting less restrictive disenfranchising provisions.  Since 1997, at least 23 states have implemented progressive reforms to their felon disenfranchisement policies to expand voting opportunities and release restrictions.    Maine has always been a leader on voting rights, and there is no reason to change course. In 2011, Maine voters overwhelming supported restoration of same day voter registration at the polls. Legislation similar to LD 573 has been proposed several times since 1999, and it’s been rejected because it’s the wrong thing to do.  The Legislature should not amend the Constitution to restrict voting rights. 

As we’ve blogged about before, our electronic privacy laws are woefully out-of-date. The law that protects the privacy of your electronic life — email, cell phone location records, Facebook posts, search history, cloud computing documents — was passed in 1986, the same year I was born. The ACLU has repeatedly called for a reboot to bring these laws into the 21st century, but until that happens there are smaller steps we can take to mitigate the privacy risks of logging onto the Internet.   One of those ways is by passing “Do Not Track” legislation. No matter where you go on the Internet, the odds are you’re being tracked. Legislation introduced last week would establish a Do Not Track mechanism that would function very similarly to a Do Not Call Registry, allowing users to restrict what companies collect about them and regain control of their privacy and online identity.   Online advertisers are creating profiles that contain an unprecedented breadth of personal information. Information as sensitive as the political opinions you express in a chat room can be stored in a database on the other side of the country. The Internet is one of the greatest tools at our disposal to practice our First Amendment rights, but key to technological advancement is our ability to surf and communicate online without the fear of being watched.   Here in Maine, we’re advancing a privacy package in Augusta that includes meaningful and concrete protections for your privacy, whether you’re online or offline. It’s time that Washington does the same.

Each Friday, we’ll bring you updates on the latest civil liberties news from Maine and the nation. This week, we bring you highlights from around the country, courtesy of the nationwide ACLU. “Today is March 1st – the start of Women’s History Month, which is dedicated to honoring women throughout history who have taken part in the movement to advance women’s rights. Over the years, women have fought tirelessly against discrimination to break down the social and economic barriers to gender equality.” Read more. “More than 45 briefs from religious leaders, members of Congress, retired military generals, children's advocacy groups, civil rights groups and others will be filed today in support of Edith "Edie" Windsor's challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).” Read more. “The use of surveillance drones is growing rapidly in the United States, but we know little about how the federal government employs this new technology. Now, new information obtained by the ACLU shows for the first time that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance.” Read more. “During the signing ceremony of the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson characterized the law as "one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom." Since that day, this landmark civil rights law has steadily and surely defeated and deterred countless discriminatory and varied barriers to the ballot.” Read more.

Talk about great timing.  On Tuesday, the ACLU of Maine and privacy advocates testified before the Judiciary Committee in favor of a bill to put reasonable limits on law enforcement use of drones for surveillance. "An Act To Protect the Privacy of Citizens from Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Use," sponsored by Sen. John Patrick (D-Rumford), would require a warrant in most cases before police could use the unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance. Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union released new information, received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that shows for the first time that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance over seven years ago. You can read about the released documents here. The revelation of this information underscores why we need strict rules governing the use of drones by the government.  By requiring that law enforcement secure judicial approval before using drones, we can achieve the right balance for the use of these eyes in the sky.