NEWARK - On the most important civil liberties issues facing the 216th Legislature, a majority in the General Assembly voted with the ACLU of New Jersey at least 90 percent of the time.
The first-ever ACLU-NJ legislative scorecard tracks the records of Assembly members on 13 key issues votes during the legislative session that began Jan. 2014. In the run-up to the Nov. 3 election, in which Assembly members are at the top of the ticket, the ACLU-NJ is releasing a scorecard of those votes to educate the public at large as well as its 20,000 members and donors who live in every single legislative district in the state. The information can be found online at https://www.aclu-nj.org/scorecard. It includes a table showing how every Assembly member voted on the issues and allows users to learn details about the scored bills, compare Assembly members’ voting records, find out who made the Honor Roll, and look up scores for legislative districts and an interactive map of New Jersey.
“The good news is that most Assembly members vote for civil liberties and civil rights most of the time. The bad news is that our elected officials aren’t always there when it counts, like with the bill to allow transgender New Jerseyans access to birth certificates that reflect their true gender,” said Ari Rosmarin, ACLU-NJ Public Policy Director. “With this kind of sound information, civil rights voters can hold elected officials accountable because they know where their representatives stand on the key issues of the day when they go to the polls.”
Of the hundreds of bills the Legislature considered, the ACLU-NJ identified 13 votes as the most central to civil rights and civil liberties, including legislation to:
Out of New Jersey’s 80 Assembly members, 32 – or 40 percent – made the ACLU-NJ’s Honor Roll, with ratings of 100 percent.
The lowest rating belonged to Assemblyman Gregory McGuckin (R-Brick) at 38 percent. Eight other members of the Assembly scored below 50 percent and also earned a spot on the ACLU-NJ’s less-than 50 percent list.
“Above all, this scorecard is a tool for public accountability. We created it to allow New Jerseyans to learn where their lawmakers stand on key issues involving our rights and freedoms,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Udi Ofer. “We’re here to ensure those who have taken a stand for our fundamental civil rights continue to act in defense of our rights and liberties, and we’re here to put pressure on those who need a refresher in what it means to defend the rights of the people. Our goal is for every elected official to achieve a 100 percent rating. Even more importantly, our goal is for every resident of New Jersey to know where their representatives stand.”
The ACLU-NJ will continue to monitor important votes as the Legislature returns for its biennial lame-duck session after the election and before the 217th Legislature is convened in January. An updated scorecard, including scores for the Senate, will mark the end of the legislative term.
Visit https://www.aclu-nj.org/scorecard to read the scorecard online, look up legislative districts, compare Assembly members on an interactive map of New Jersey, and learn about the details of the scored bills in more detail.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded a court decision today that ensures the right of Muslim New Jerseyans to challenge the New York Police Department surveillance program that appeared to target them based solely on their religious beliefs. The decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with individuals, associations, and businesses represented by Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and reinstated the case in which the ACLU-NJ and Rutgers School of Law-Newark Constitutional Rights Clinic filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of numerous civil rights organizations. The opinion rejected a lower court opinion issued in February 2014 that had erroneously held that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue and accepted at face value the government’s unsupported rationale for the spying.
As explained by the Court: “What occurs here in one guise is not new. We have been down similar roads before. Jewish-Americans during the Red Scare, African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement, and Japanese-Americans during World War II are examples that readily spring to mind. We are left to wonder why we cannot see with foresight what we see so clearly with hindsight — that ‘loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind, not race, creed, or color.’”
The following statement is from Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey.
“The ACLU-NJ commends the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for reinstating the case against the NYPD’s discriminatory spying program. It appears the agency spied on Muslim individuals, mosques, and Muslim-owned businesses based solely on religion. Our Constitution forbids such discriminatory actions.
“Widespread discriminatory policies against religious and ethnic minorities have occurred before in our country, but we look back on such actions with regret, as we will here. The opinion today rightly overturned a ruling that would have denied individuals the right to challenge patently unconstitutional discrimination. When the government profiles an entire group of people based solely on a characteristic such as ethnicity or religion, affected individuals are due their day in court, which will now happen. We look forward to the next steps in this important case.”
NEWARK – As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie prepares to announce his candidacy today for president of the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) reissued its report card on his first term in office.
Christie earned a grade of D+ for his record on civil liberties and civil rights. Now into his second term, Christie not only continues his poor performance, but raises new concerns about his record on key matters of constitutional rights.
“As Americans begin to consider candidates for the presidency, it is vitally important that they are informed about their candidates’ records on constitutional rights and freedoms,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Udi Ofer. “We hope that this guide will help voters become more informed about Governor Christie’s stance on key civil liberties and civil rights issues.”
The ACLU-NJ report card graded Christie on 12 crucial civil rights and liberties matters: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, voting rights, women’s rights, immigrants’ rights, privacy, LGBT rights, criminal justice and drug policy, transparency, separation of powers, and economic justice.
“Governor Christie’s record on civil liberties and civil rights has been a poor one,” said Ofer. “Some of his most frustrating moments have been those times when he paid lip service to the protection of rights but failed to back up words with actions. For gay and lesbian New Jerseyans seeking to marry, sick patients in need of medical marijuana, or New Jerseyans seeking to learn basic information about their state government, the Christie administration has been a failure.”
Christie’s lowest grades were in the areas of transparency, separation of church and state, and separation of powers. The governor earned higher marks in other areas, such as freedom of religion. Following are some highlights (and lowlights).
Christie’s second-term has raised other civil liberties and rights concerns. He has opposed early, in-person voting, dismissing it as an attempt at voter fraud despite the lack of evidence to support such claims. And eight months ago his administration issued an order requiring the detention of medical workers returning from one of three West African countries where they treated Ebola patients, even if they were asymptomatic. The decision was widely criticized by the medical community following the detention of a nurse, Kaci Hickox, at Newark Liberty International Airport. In the face of public pressure, he eventually released Hickox.
Finally, Christie has repeatedly stated that the Patriot Act does not violate civil liberties, despite the fact that numerous federal courts have found provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional and to violate civil liberties.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded the overwhelming passage of A1039, a bill that would offer some of the strongest protections in the nation against abusive drone surveillance by law enforcement.
The bill would require police to obtain a warrant before using surveillance drones except in certain extraordinary situations, and it would require law enforcement to dispose of information within two weeks unless it’s being used for an ongoing investigation. Additionally, the legislation prohibits using drones as weapons in the state of New Jersey, and it requires law enforcement agencies to publicly report on their use of drones.
“Drone technology is expanding rapidly and the law needs to keep pace. This legislation is a critical starting point,” said ACLU-NJ Public Policy Director Ari Rosmarin. “Drones have remarkable capacity to gather information about New Jerseyans’ everyday lives, as well as the dangerous potential to encroach on our privacy. This legislation would add common-sense protections for when and how law enforcement can use drones in our state.”
A1039 was introduced by Assemblyman Dan Benson at the start of the legislative session. Similar legislation regulating drones passed the Senate and Assembly nearly unanimously in January 2014, only to be pocket-vetoed by Governor Christie. The bill today passed nearly unanimously in the Assembly, with 66 votes for the legislation, three abstentions and one vote against.
Twelve other states — Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin — have passed drone privacy laws.
S2310, the bill’s companion in the Senate, was introduced by Senator Nicholas Sacco. The bill currently sits in the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee awaiting a hearing.
“The drones are coming. With no rules in place, law enforcement’s use of drones is a scary prospect,” Rosmarin added. “We urge the Senate to stand up for New Jerseyans’ rights and make sure that the drones that will soon fly through New Jersey skies do not become a privacy nightmare.”
The text of A1039 can be found here: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A1500/1039_R1.PDF
NEWARK – The ACLU-NJ today praised a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that unanimously upheld the rights of a woman who took methadone during pregnancy to treat an addiction to opioids, affirming the arguments of the amicus brief the ACLU-NJ submitted in the case. The state’s highest court determined that the New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services and the Appellate Division had erred by deeming the mother responsible for abuse and neglect of her child because she took a prescribed medication for the purposes of harm-reduction while under a doctor’s care.
This decision reversed an Appellate Division ruling that had considered any harm to a child, regardless of the broader facts surrounding the circumstances, as evidence of abuse or neglect. The court also remanded the case back to the lower court to assess whether there were any alternate reasons for the finding.
“This ruling underscores that the state should not be in the business of second-guessing medical decisions made by a woman and her doctor,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Edward Barocas. “Penalizing pregnant women for seeking health care is not only unconstitutional, but counterproductive.”
On the recommendation of her doctors, Y.N. took methadone during pregnancy to treat her addiction to the pain killer Percocet. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, methadone maintenance treatment is “the most effective treatment for opiate addiction” and leads to “improved pregnancy outcomes,” which the decision itself referenced. When Y.N.’s child was born, he required treatment for opioid withdrawal, as doctors had anticipated, but was otherwise healthy. The Appellate Division determined that the child’s withdrawal symptoms were sufficient for a finding of abuse and neglect.
According to the New Jersey Supreme Court the Appellate Division applied an excessively stringent and inflexible interpretation that did not factor in the mother’s decision-making in the best interest of herself and her pregnancy. The court’s decision also discussed the lower court ruling’s “perverse disincentive” for pregnant women to be forthcoming with their doctors, fearing that an appropriate course of treatment for addiction could ultimately result in a ruling of abuse or neglect.
“This ruling is incredibly important for recognizing the nuances involved in making complex personal medical decisions, especially during pregnancy,” said Ronald Chen of the Rutgers Constitutional Rights Clinic, who served as cooperating attorney in this case on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. “If, as a society, we truly care about healthy moms and healthy babies, we must ensure pregnant women have access to prenatal care, support, and treatment to overcome their addiction.”
The unanimous ruling was authored by New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry T. Albin.
“We hold that, absent exceptional circumstances, a finding of abuse or neglect cannot be sustained based solely on a newborn’s enduring methadone withdrawal following a mother’s timely participation in a bona fide treatment program prescribed by a licensed healthcare professional to whom she has made full disclosure,” the court's opinion said.
This Halloween the staff at the ACLU of New Jersey share what spooks them when it comes to defending our civil liberties. The videos below will serve content from youtube.com. YouTube's privacy statment. ACLU-NJ's privacy statement.
ACLU-NJ Transparency Law Fellow Iris Bromberg is frightened that voter suppression laws will take away her right to vote.
Upon news of the impending release of health care worker Kaci Hickox from mandatory quarantine in New Jersey, ACLU of New Jersey executive director Udi Ofer issues the following statement.
"Kaci Hickox will see freedom after being coercively detained for three days, but New Jersey’s overbroad policy of automatically detaining all healthcare workers returning from West Africa after helping Ebola patients continues. Ebola is a serious matter and the government’s response should be driven by science and facts, not by fear and politics.
'Medical workers have put their lives at risk treating Ebola patients. They should be rewarded with compassion and not treated like criminals. Mandatory quarantine of people exhibiting no Ebola symptoms and when not medically necessary is overbroad and raises serious constitutional concerns. Governor Christie should rescind the mandatory quarantine policy, which could affect potentially hundreds of returning healthcare workers.
'New Jersey’s policy not only raises constitutional problems, but also discourages first responders from helping sick patients who need their assistance."
The following statement is from Udi Ofer, executive director of the ACLU of New Jersey.
Ebola is a public health issue and the government’s response should be driven by science and facts and not by fear. We must treat our medical workers who put their lives at risk, and are the only ones who can contain this epidemic, with compassion and not like criminals. Coercive measures like mandatory quarantine of people exhibiting no symptoms of Ebola and when not medically necessary raise serious constitutional concerns about the state abusing its powers.
By forcibly detaining people we are also frightening the public and may deter genuinely sick people who fear quarantine from seeking the treatments they deserve, while also discouraging caregivers and first responders from helping sick patients who need their assistance.
This is a challenging time for New Jersey, but decisions must be made based on sound medicine, and not on fear. Governor Christie must provide more information to the public about how the state came to the conclusion that mandatory quarantine of our healthcare workers was medically necessary.
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) sent a demand letter (PDF) to Acting Director Terri Genardi of the New Jersey State Park Police demanding the agency stop using Social Security numbers (SSNs) as part of its process when ticketing vehicles. The ACLU-NJ was alerted of this practice after a Liberty State Park visitor, Tamara Laine, received a parking ticket bearing her Social Security number in writing.
The ACLU-NJ letter urges the NJSPP to purge all files that contain SSNs and to change their ticket forms, which clearly provide a blank for a nine-digit number. Certain ticket forms include the phrase “SOC SECURITY NUMBER” lightly on the nine-digit field. Additionally the ACLU-NJ asks for an investigation into why and how the SSNs were obtained as part of the ticketing process.
“The Park Police has jeopardized privacy rights by placing the most sensitive information a person can have – a Social Security number – in plain sight on car windshields,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Edward Barocas, who sent the letter. “Under the laws and constitutions of the United States and New Jersey, the government has no authority to unjustifiably collect and expose our private information. We hope the agency will explain how this breach happened, and we expect a promise that this kind of misconduct will end.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court gives SSNs the highest degree of protection. Government agencies can only obtain or disclose Social Security numbers if there is an overriding justification to do so. In its letter, the ACLU-NJ said it could find no justification for the NJSPP obtaining individuals’ SSNs. Further, the public display of SSNs on parking tickets opens up individuals to heightened risk of identity theft, as SSNs are unique identifiers tied closely to a person’s financial affairs.
According to reports, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has stated that SSNs are not normally put on parking tickets and that the placement on tickets would be a mistake and occurred in just a few instances. However, the ACLU-NJ has obtained numerous tickets issued by NJSPP in just over a two week period that indicate otherwise.
The ACLU-NJ has requested a response to its requests from the NJSPP by August 29, 2014.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief (PDF) on behalf of itself and numerous civil rights advocacy organizations in the case of Hassan, et al., v. City of New York, which challenges the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) surveillance of Muslims, mosques, and Muslim-owned businesses in New Jersey. The brief, which was submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, explained that the lower court erred when it issued a decision in February dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.
The organizations on the brief included Latino Justice PRLDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Garden State Bar Association, the Hispanic Bar Association, and the Association of Black Women Lawyers of New Jersey.
"When a person presents evidence that a government agency has singled them out for harsher treatment because of their race, ethnicity or religion, the government bears a heavy burden of justifying its actions," stated Rutgers Law School-Newark's Acting Dean Ronald Chen, who is serving as the ACLU-NJ's cooperating counsel in the case. "The plaintiffs deserve to have their day in court to challenge being profiled by the NYPD."
For years, the New York City Police Department secretly conducted surveillance that targeted Muslims living in New Jersey, until a Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press series uncovered the program. On February 21, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge William Martini dismissed the lawsuit, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Muslim Advocates on behalf of eight Muslim residents of New Jersey, despite the serious constitutional concerns involved in targeting people for surveillance based solely on their religion.
"This appeal is significant, not only because it seeks to restore a challenge the NYPD's surveillance practices, but also because of what it could mean for future civil rights causes," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Our federal courts must be open to hearing discrimination claims. As explained in the brief, when the government profiles an entire group of people based solely on a characteristic such as ethnicity or religion, it has a ripple effect, causing others to fear and discriminate against that group."
The amicus brief in Hassan v. City of New York was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.