Civilrights.org

At a time when local and state governments, faced with budget shortfalls, are eliminating many important social programs, San Francisco is actually committing vital funds to making sure every one of its citizens is counted in the 2010 census.

Through the advocacy efforts of Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), a San-Francisco-based advocacy organization, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution to make the 2010 Census a policy priority.  The resolution states that the city "will do everything within its powers to ensure an Accurate, Fair and Inclusive Count of All San Francisco Residents in the 2010 Census and to secure all federal dollars available to the City."

The mayor and city supervisors have included $300,000 in the city budget to support census outreach activities, which may include some outreach into hard-to-count minority communities. CAA is advocating for an additional $700,000 to provide support for community-based organizations that are reaching out to these communities. 

In its 5-4 decision in Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L.L.C. this week, the Supreme Court ruled that states, not just federal authorities, can enforce their own fair lending and consumer protection laws against national banks. Consumer advocates say the ruling will play a major role in how consumer protection and civil rights laws are enforced.

The case began in 2005 when the state of New York tried to investigate certain national banks it believed were charging minority borrowers higher interest rates than White borrowers.

National banks, who are already regulated by the federal government, argued that state scrutiny of their mortgage lending records would unleash a complicated patchwork of state regulations that would make it hard for them to meet the needs of their customers across all 50 states.  

But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for an unusual group of four other justices – Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer – found that in instances where state and federal law do not explicitly conflict, states should be free to enforce their civil rights laws in court. Otherwise, said Scalia, "the bark remains, but the bite does not."

"This Supreme Court decision is a victory for taxpayers, who have suffered enormously as a result of abusive business practices in all types of lending.  This decision will help to restore confidence in the financial services industry and the national economy," said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. 

Read the opinion.

Though the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act three months ago, the Senate has yet to take action on the bill.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Obama administration strongly supported the bill, stating,  "The President and I seek swift passage of this legislation because hate crimes victimize not only individuals, but entire communities."

Michael Lieberman,  Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League and co-chair of LCCR's hate crimes task force testified to the escalating problem of hate crimes in the U.S., citing recent FBI statistics and LCCREF's recent report, "Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America."

"Failure to address this unique type of crime could cause an isolated incident to explode into widespread community tension. The damage done by hate crimes, therefore, cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry, and suspicious of other groups – and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them – these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities," said Lieberman.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed a new standard on employers seeking to comply with federal employment discrimination laws in its 5-4 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, a race discrimination lawsuit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut.

Ricci involved the claim by one Latino and nine White firefighters that the city's decision not to certify the results of a firefighter promotion test discriminated against them.  After the test was administered, the city had found that it had a discriminatory effect. The city concluded the test was biased and, after extensive consideration and five public hearings, chose to abandon the discriminatory exam, in order to avoid facing a discrimination lawsuit.  Two lower courts agreed that the city made the correct decision.

However, the Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy,  that the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, and national origin, by not certifying the test.  In doing so, the Court created a new standard that gives employers very little room to rectify situations where a policy is found to have a discriminatory effect after the policy has been applied.

Arizona's equal opportunity programs are facing a renewed assault this week after the state legislature voted to place an anti-equal opportunity initiative onto the 2010 Arizona General Election ballot.

California businessman and millionaire Ward Connerly had attempted to qualify the initiative for the ballot in 2008. However, the so-called Arizona "Civil Rights" Initiative, Proposition 104, failed to get on the ballot after the Arizona's Secretary of State disqualified more than 40 percent of the petition signatures collected by Connerly's campaign.  Connerly had faced numerous allegations of fraudulent activities and even profiteering around these initiatives in Arizona and other states.  Under Arizona state law, an initiative must have 230,047 valid signatures  from the public before it is placed on the ballot. Having failed to garner enough public support with valid petition signatures, Connerly and his supporters have chosen to go through the legislature, which is currently controlled by Republicans.

The vote on this anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative in 2010 could affect programs that many Arizonans consider essential for ensuring that all Arizonans have equal access to opportunities in education and employment. Speaking after the state Senate vote Monday, state Sen. Rebecca Rios, D. Apache Junction, noted that although some progress has been made in providing equal opportunity, there is still a great "need" for programs that are designed to level the playing field. Programs that could be affected include an Arizona State University initiative that helps Native Americans transition from life on the reservation to life at college and a counseling program for teen fathers in Phoenix.