The ACLU of MAINE generally doesn't weigh in on budget allocations, but this Monday, we testified in front of the Appropriations and Health and Human Services Committees to specifically oppose two portions of the Proposed Biennial Budget for 2012-2013 which are discriminatory and infringe upon people's fundamental civil rights and civil liberties.
We shared with them our grave concerns about the portions of the budget that require drug testing and punish children for the actions of their parents.
Language (Part “LL” – requires proof of regular drug testing in order to receive initial and continued assistance under TANF). Suspicion-less, mandatory drug testing is an invasion of privacy, discriminatory, and a waste of state funds. Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population. And welfare recipients' constitutional rights are no less sacred than the rights of any recipients of state assistance, including those of corporate subsidies. It’s not a crime to be poor, and poor people shouldn’t be treated like criminals.
At a time when Maine is struggling to close its significant budget loophole, it makes no sense from a fiscal perspective to spend the state’s limited resources on ineffective and costly drug testing programs. Drug testing is expensive.
The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested, not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure or cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.[1]
In fact, many states have abandoned efforts to drug test welfare recipients precisely because of the significant financial implications. New York and Maryland discarded their random drug testing plans after finding that questionnaires were more cost-effective. Public officials in Louisiana, Oregon, Alabama and Iowa also decided that there were other less invasive, more cost-effective methods of identifying drug dependence.
Perhaps, most importantly, we believe that mandatory drug testing violates the spirit of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause." Federal courts struck down a similar law in Michigan in 2003 as unconstitutional.[2]
There is a second provision of grave concern from a civil liberties perspective as well. This budget implements sanctions against the entire family, including children, if a parent does not fully comply with TANF/ASPIRE program rules. Punishing individuals for the actions of others outside of their control violates core due process principles under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the violation is even more egregious when the individuals being punished are children. It is wrong to punish children for the actions of their parents. It is wrong to deny children access to basic food, medical care, and housing when those children did not choose their parents.
Finally, provisions denying benefits to immigrants who here legally also violates the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that no person shall be denied equal protection under the law. The ACLU of MAINE has no views about the allocation of funds to general assistance, but we fervently believe that all government protections and benefits must be distributed in a way that reflects Fourteenth Amendment principles of non-discrimination and equal protection. To single out immigrants for disparate treatment violates those principles.
There are many policy reasons why these proposals are troubling. And equally, if not more important, these budget proposals pose serious constitutional concerns to the principles of privacy, due process, and equal protection under the law. There are no easy answers as the legislature examines funding for various programs and budget allocations in these difficult times. However, elected officials, swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and should reject any provisions of the budget that infringe upon core constitutional rights. They have the power to choose a fiscally prudent path that does not discriminate, that does not invade the privacy of poor people, and that does not punish children for the actions of their parents.