A line in the sand in Liberty County
By Frank Knaack (Originally posted on Texas Prison Bid’ness)
Associate Director of Public Policy and Advocacy
With the goal of lowering the operating costs of the Liberty County Jail, 253rd District Court Judge Chap B. Cain initiated a plan to reduce the number of non-violent individuals housed in the jail. This sounds like a great plan, one where the county saves millions, public safety is not harmed, and non-violent individuals are not locked up. Everyone wins … right? Wrong!
As The Cleveland Advocate reported (“County’s jail inmate population down, but companies now asking for more money per inmate,” 1/21/12), for-profit prison companies have reacted by telling the community that they will not let the county’s smart on crime approach undermine the profitability of the county jail. As 75th District Court Judge Mark Morefield, who supports the inmate reduction plan, stated: “’One bid said that if the inmate population goes below 200, the cost per inmate goes from $63 to $68 per day. If we work really hard to decrease the inmate population, the cost will go up to $70 per day, … [t]hey are taking all the incentive out of it.’” With profit as their main goal, it comes as no surprise that for-profit prison companies have actively lobbied against some criminal justice reforms and for the continuation of the failed “tough on crime” approach to criminal justice. Liberty County is just one more casualty in the for-profit prison companies’ race to maximize their bottom line.
But, Liberty County may not bow down to the for-profit prison industry. According to The Cleveland Advocate, Judge Morefield believes the county can manage its jail. For Texas Prison Bid’ness readers in Liberty County – this is your opportunity to take a stand by supporting the effort to kick the for-profit prison companies out of Liberty County!
Religion in Public Schools: Is the Bible off limits in the classroom?
By Rebecca Robertson
Director of Public Policy and Advocacy
If you want to get Texans riled up, start a conversation about teaching the Bible in public schools! Feelings run high, and everyone has an opinion. We wish we could say there are clear rules to guide educators when it comes to teaching the Bible, but thanks to inaction by Texas legislators and the State Board of Education, the situation is murkier than it needs to be.
As we’ve seen, there is a constitutional prohibition on government-run schools foisting a particular religious viewpoint on school children. That rule protects the rights of parents and students to decide for themselves whether and how to worship. In keeping with this rule, public schools can teach about the Bible if they do so in an objective and academic manner rather than a religious one. For example, it’s okay for teachers to focus on the historical or literary import of the Bible. Conversely, schools must avoid conveying any particular religious message or promoting a particular sectarian interpretation of the Bible.
In 2007, Texas enacted a law permitting public schools to offer an elective Bible course to ninth- through 12th-grade students. The law specifies that the course must comply with the Constitution and that teachers should receive training designed, in part, to help them teach the course in a manner that is constitutional. So far, so good, right?
The problem is that the legislature has declined to appropriate any money for teacher training, and the State Board of Education has refused to write any curriculum standards specifically for the course. The result is that schools that offer the Bible elective have very little guidance about how to do it right.
Because any Bible course is, by definition, about religion, schools and teachers need to be careful not to infringe on students’ religious liberty. If Texas legislators and the State Board of Education really care about religious liberty, they’ll take steps to ensure that any Bible curriculum taught in Texas public schools stays within constitutional bounds. That won’t end the controversy over teaching the Bible, of course, but at least we’d all know the ground rules!
How Much Does Incarceration Really Cost Texans?
By Kirsten Bokenkamp
Senior Communications Strategist
If you keep up with the ACLU of Texas, you know that we have been saying (for a long time) that our criminal justice system is based on a broken model – a model that wastes valuable tax dollars and does not make our communities safer. Indeed, it is one reason why we argue that Texas should increase community-based alternatives to incarceration for low level offenders, release sick and elderly prisoners who pose no public safety threat, and stop the use of criminal enhancements that increase time spent in prison. It is time that we cast aside failed tough on crime rhetoric and focus on real, evidence-based solutions!
In light of a new report that was just released, we stick to our argument more than ever. The national report, The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers, published by the Vera Institute of Justice, shows that Texas taxpayers pay an average 23 percent more for state prisons than the state’s annual corrections budget reflects.
Let’s break down what the report has to say:
- Texas taxpayers pay $21,390 a year per convict. In 2010, with an average daily population of 154,576, that comes to $3.3 billion.
- During the same time period, the budget for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice was $2.5 billion for prison expenditures.
- That means that the state had more than $782 million in additional prison related costs that were not included in this budget. That certainly isn’t very transparent. Prison costs not written in to TDCJ’s budget included certain employee benefits such as health insurance premiums, pension contributions, retiree health care contributions, some of the expenses to repair and rehabilitate TDCJ facilities, and a portion of judgments and legal claims.
With our state budget strapped and money being siphoned from vital community, health, and educational programs, this news is very concerning. The ACLU of Texas will continue to fight for smart criminal justice policies as well as transparency from our lawmakers. Please join us in making Texas a better state for all of us. Sign up for our e-alerts today.
And, Search Warrants Win!
By Kirsten Bokenkamp
Senior Communications Strategist
The protection of civil liberties had a day in court today when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the government cannot use GPS trackers to track suspects without first obtaining a warrant. The Court held that the government violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches, when it placed a GPS device to a vehicle and tracked its owner’s movements continuously for a month. This case is especially significant because it is the first time the Court has had to consider the constitutionality of location-tracking technology, and this decision could influence the law on cell phone tracking.
Also worth noting…during the last legislative session in Texas, the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee tried to incorporate the exact practice now ruled unconstitutional by the Court into one version of its “homeland security” omnibus bill. Texas lawmakers sure were wise not to pass that bill. Of course, we were always against this practice to begin with, but we sure are happy that – on this issue – Texas law follows the Constitution!
Religion in Public Schools: Why can students lead prayers, but not teachers?
By Rebecca Robertson
Director of Public Policy and Advocacy
Here at the ACLU of Texas, we get a lot of flak for wanting “to take prayer out of public schools.” (Not that we mind. It’s our job to stand up for liberty when others won’t.) But at least our critics ought to get the facts straight! We’re not opposed to prayer in school if it’s initiated by students. What we do oppose is prayer being forced on students by teachers, coaches, or school administrators.
So what’s the difference? It’s right there in the Constitution! In our first post on the Religion in Public Schools blog series, we discussed how the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty has two parts: freedom to exercise one’s faith (or no faith), and freedom from government intrusion.
The freedom to exercise one’s faith protects a student’s right to pray in school, whatever her religion. Students can even invite their friends to join them in prayer. For example, “see you at the flag pole” events, where students meet at a pre-arranged location to pray together before school, are permissible so long as students are the organizers and attendance is voluntary.
But the flip side of making sure that students have the freedom to follow their individual beliefs is making sure that school officials don’t force their own religious views on kids. The Constitution prohibits the government from telling people that they must pray at a certain time or in a certain way. That’s why schools cannot have someone lead an official prayer at a football game or at graduation, even if the prayer is non-sectarian. Schools cannot be in the business of coercing students to listen to or participate in prayer that conflicts with the students’ beliefs. Only kids and their parents have the right to decide whether and how school children pray.
We hope we’ve cleared things up. Students have the right to pray or not according to their own personal beliefs, and government-run schools need to stay out of it!
Up next – Bibles in Texas classrooms.
Religion in Public Schools: Could school dress codes ban the hijab?
By Rebecca Robertson
Director, Public Policy and Advocacy
In a word, no! School dress codes cannot, in most cases, be used to prevent students from wearing religious attire.
What does the law say on the subject? Both the Constitution and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) protect students’ rights to wear religious attire in school. The law is very strict: a Texas public school can only prevent a student from wearing religious attire if there is no less restrictive way to further the school’s compelling interest.
Despite the law, school dress codes are often problematic. In our experience, religious head coverings in school are the subject of a lot of confusion. Many faith traditions include the wearing of a head covering – such as a turban, yarmulke, or head scarf – as an expression of devotion or modesty.
But it’s not just kids who practice a minority faith who find themselves at odds with school administrators over these issues. Even kids from so-called “mainstream” religious traditions can be impacted. For example, although almost a third of Texans identified as Catholic in the most recent American Religious Identification Survey, some Texas school districts have tried to ban rosaries.
Schools that insist on enforcing dress codes over kids’ sincere religious objections may find themselves answering to a judge. Courts in Texas have repeatedly ruled in favor of students’ rights to wear religious attire. For example, a federal court in Houston ruled against a school that punished Catholic students for wearing rosaries, and two others have prohibited schools from requiring American Indian boys to cut their hair to comply with a campus dress code.
The bottom line? Schools cannot restrict this kind of religious observance by students; school dress codes need to accommodate students’ religious practice.
Coming up, one of the more hotly debated issues – school prayer.
United Methodist Church Divests Almost $1 Million from Private Prison Industry
By Kirsten Bokenkamp
Senior Communications Strategist
The private prison industry has close connections with both federal and state lawmakers and spends billions of dollars to create laws that put more people in jail and keep them there longer. In short, the private prison industry makes tons of money while acting as a barrier to meaningful criminal law reform.
Through advocacy, public education, lobbying, and legal work, groups like the ACLU of TX fight against this injustice all the time. But there is another, extremely powerful way to fight the behemoth that is the private prison industry. Divest. That is exactly what the United Methodist Church (UMC) did last week, and we applaud them for it.
Before divesting, UMC held about $736,000 in Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and $215,500 in GEO Group, two of the largest private prison corporations in the world. These international jail keepers have combined annual revenues of more than $300 billion and last year alone, CCA and GEO executives raked in more than $3 million each.
A few months ago, the UMC’s General Board of Church and Society started a petition on change.org that called on the church to immediately divest all of its interests in private prison corporations and instead to invest in organizations that help prisoners reenter society. According to the letter, UMC members and signatories to the petition recognize the downfalls of private prisons, including discrimination, driving anti-immigrant legislation, and the multiple cases of abuses in their facilities. They believe that profiting from private prisons and owning stock in private prison corporations is incompatible with biblical teaching.
UMC’s divestment is a major step against the private prison industry in our country, and one that should be celebrated. In rough economic times, doing the right thing can sometimes seem close to impossible – but UMC has reminded us profit shouldn’t come at the expense of compassion, respect, and justice.
Religion in Public Schools: What is all the fuss about?
By Rebecca Robertson
Director of Public Policy and Advocacy
Ever wonder why the issue of religion in public schools is so contentious? All of us believe in freedom of religion, right?
Maybe the debate would generate less heat and more light if people better understood what “freedom of religion” really means when it comes to public schools. What are students’ rights? And what is the school’s responsibility?
In this series, we’ll look at how our Constitution and Texas law protect a student’s right to practice her faith, even at school. And we’ll explain why schools cannot be in the business of endorsing one religion over others.
Let’s start with first principles: everyone knows that religious liberty is guaranteed to all by the Constitution. In fact, it’s the very first freedom set forth in the Bill of Rights. But did you know that the freedom of religion has two equally important components? Check it out! The Constitution not only protects a person’s freedom to practice her own faith (or no faith at all), but also guarantees freedom from government intrusion into matters of faith.
Both “freedom to” and “freedom from” are relevant in public school settings. The law is clear that students have the right to exercise their religious faiths – or no faith at all – at school. The freedom applies equally to everyone, no matter what faith they practice.
And schools must respect students’ diverse religious practices. The Constitution says government – including government-run schools – cannot promote one religion over another or promote religion over non-belief. That limitation ensures students and their parents, not some government bureaucrat, decide whether and how to worship.
In upcoming blogs, we’ll talk about how these principles play out at school. From school dress codes, to school prayer, to the role of the Bible in Texas classrooms, we’ll look at the most controversial issues when it comes to religion in public schools.
ALEC and Private Prison Lobbying Exposed
By Frank Knaack (Originally posted on Texas Prison Bid’ness)
Associate Director of Public Policy and Advocacy
Earlier this year, The Nation and The Center for Media and Democracy released ALEC Exposed. ALEC Exposed brought to light the actions of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization that unites corporations with state legislators to “discuss” public policy and draft model legislation. One of the most concerning areas of this public/private partnership is in the realm of criminal justice and prisons. In fact, criminal injustice may be a more appropriate phrase. Thanks to ALEC, the for-profit prison industry has a lot to be thankful for during this holiday season.
As The Nation reported, “ALEC helped pioneer some of the toughest sentencing laws on the books today, like mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, ‘three strikes’ laws, and ‘truth in sentencing’ laws.” According to the proponents, these laws are designed to reduce crime. In reality, as California saw first hand, instead of reducing recidivism these laws lead to severe overcrowding. In the end, public safety is undermined (at the expense of taxpayers) while the for-profit prison industry makes out like a bandit. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company, played a lead role on the ALEC task force developing some of this legislation. NPR reported last year that through its membership in ALEC, CCA was actually able to help draft model anti-immigrant legislation like Arizona’s noxious SB 1070.
Unfortunately, the negative influence of the for-profit prison industry is not limited to ALEC. As the ACLU reported, CCA and The Geo Group, Inc. have engaged in a multi-state lobbying effort to fight smart on crime reforms. These two corporations hired 271 lobbyists in over 32 states between 2003-2011. Between 1999 and 2009, CCA alone spent over $18 million on lobbying, just at the federal level. To understand their need for this army of lobbyists you do not need to read any further than Geo’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings (CCA’s is similar):
“Our growth depends on our ability to secure contracts to develop and manage new correctional, detention and mental health facilities, the demand for which is outside our control …. [A]ny changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us.”
The U.S. has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, and the private prison industry clearly wants to make sure it stays that way. While taxpayer and civil rights advocates have been working to reform archaic and ineffective criminal justice laws, working to ensure that our laws reflect current research on effective ways to reduce crime and protect human rights, for-profit prison corporations are headed in the opposite direction. To these corporations, societal impact and public safety don’t matter. The only thing that is relevant is maximizing the bottom line.
BNTTX7TBXAS3
How We Celebrate the Season: Merry Christmas from the ACLU of Texas!
By Victor Cornell
Austin Regional Coordinator
Although you may have heard that the ACLU of Texas is anti-religion or anti-Christian, the truth is quite the opposite. The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas have long defended the rights of all of us to practice our religion freely, regardless of any particular religious affiliation, without government interference.
Religion plays a prominent role in American public life. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and cathedrals are plainly visible in the public sphere and their right to display religious symbols and to construct religious edifices is protected by the Constitution and by statutes. We have supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. Even in our public schools, students’ right to pray and talk about their faith is protected. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.
This religious freedom is a fundamental human right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It encompasses not only the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. These rights should not be subject to the political process and majority votes.
The Constitution does not endorse any religious creed, and it does not give government the right to decide theological questions. Beliefs about the nature of God are a proper subject for individuals, families, religious communities, and theologians, but not for government bodies such as the U.S. Congress or a local school board. The government has no business telling any American what to believe in religious matters or deciding which side to support – symbolically or financially – in religious questions. We should constantly remind ourselves that religion is a fundamental right that needs to be protected.
Hopefully, now that you know the facts about the ACLU of Texas and Christmas, you can avoid bearing false witness and (should you so desire) be empowered to set the record straight. Merry Christmas from the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas!
Share this holiday greeting card from the ACLU with friends and family.
