New Report Says Women Forced to Give Birth, Forced to Abort

Introduction

Abortion has been a highly contested issue in recent years, with politicians and activists on both sides of the debate holding strong opinions. However, a new report from the Guttmacher Institute sheds light on a troubling trend – the use of laws to force women to give birth or to undergo abortions against their will.

Forced Birth

The Guttmacher Institute’s report, titled “Restricting Abortion Around the World: Laws and Policies,” outlines how governments are increasingly using laws to force women to give birth. This includes mandatory waiting periods, counseling sessions, and ultrasound requirements that are designed to deter or delay women from having abortions.

In some cases, these laws are even more extreme. The report highlights cases in which women are forced to undergo cesarean sections or are arrested and imprisoned for miscarriages. The result is that women’s reproductive rights are being violated, and their right to make their own choices about their bodies is being undermined.

Forced Abortion

While forced birth is certainly a troubling trend, the Guttmacher Institute’s report also points out that there are situations in which women are forced to undergo abortions against their will. This can happen in countries that have strict policies limiting family size or that have discriminatory practices that target certain ethnic or religious groups.

In China, for example, the government’s “one-child policy” has led to reports of forced abortions and sterilizations. Women who become pregnant without permission or who exceed their family size quotas may be forcibly taken to clinics and forced to have abortions. This practice is a blatant violation of women’s reproductive rights, and it underscores the dangers of government policies that seek to control women’s bodies.

Conclusion

The Guttmacher Institute’s report on restrictive abortion laws is a wake-up call for anyone who cares about women’s rights and reproductive freedom. Whether through forced birth or forced abortion, governments around the world are using laws to exert control over women’s bodies, and the consequences are often devastating.

It’s time for policymakers, activists, and ordinary citizens to stand up and push back against these practices. We must work to ensure that women have access to the information, resources, and healthcare they need to make informed choices about their bodies and their futures. Anything less is an unacceptable violation of human rights.

Abortion took center stage as an issue women and men were interested in during this year’s election cycle. A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, compiled based on data and policies from governments around the world, reports that the law is being used in several different ways to prevent women from making informed reproductive choices.

The United States is curtailing women’s access to abortions at the same time that women in other nations are being compelled to have abortions against their will.

In China, a rural mother, Feng Jianmei, was photographed being forced into an abortion while seven months pregnant. Dissidents who have protested against the nation’s policies of forced abortions, sterilizations, and even infanticide have been punished harshly—some have simply disappeared into the Chinese prison system.

China is not the first country to curtail people’s reproductive freedoms by telling them that they could not have children. India and Peru have both had forced sterilization efforts on a massive scale. The United States also forcibly sterilized tens of thousands of women, often those with mental or physical disabilities or members of racial or ethnic minorities.

At the same time, according to the Guttmacher Institute, reproductive coercion has been occurring in other countries in a radically different direction. In Romania in the 1980s, government policies were so strict about forbidding abortion and encouraging reproduction that women were forced to schedule monthly gynecological examinations in order to ensure that they had not had an illegal abortion. Rates of illegal abortions still climbed, as did infant mortality and the number of children left in state care.

Turkey, Iran, and other culturally Muslim nations have also been spearheading efforts to curtail women’s ability to get an abortion. Turkey almost made all abortions illegal earlier this year by allowing abortion only through 4 weeks of pregnancy—before most women even realize they are pregnant.

Iran, which had previously encouraged reproductive choice and family planning until it had become one of the Muslim nations with the highest rates of modern contraceptive use, has now begun to enact some anti-abortion legislation.

In the United States, too, abortion and contraception find themselves under intense scrutiny, particularly by conservative forces in federal and state legislatures. Evangelical Christians in the United States have led a “pro-life” movement dedicated to stamping out abortion, which they decry as murder. In many states, they have had a great deal of success limiting access to abortions and other reproductive health care by imposing waiting periods, notification requirements, and special building codes for abortion clinics.

One of the newest ways that conservatives have attempted to restrict abortion access is by requiring extensive abortion counseling, often with specific language to be used. In some cases, the language required by the state legislatures during abortion counseling contains misinformation, including information suggesting a correlation between abortions and breast cancer rates and infertility.

Sources: guttmacher.org, house.gov

Supreme Court Ruling Affects Protesters in Abortion Debate

Introduction

The Supreme Court has ruled on its first case this October, and it concerns the rights of anti-abortion protesters. The case, Lefemine v. Wideman, revolves around a Christian activist group that displayed graphic images of aborted fetuses during their protests. The ruling has significant implications for free speech and the abortion debate.

The Case

The case centers around Steve Lefemine, a member of a Christian activist group that protests against abortion. Lefemine and his group frequently display graphic images of aborted fetuses during their protests in South Carolina, which has led to disciplinary action from local law enforcement.

Lefemine sued the officials, arguing that their actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with Lefemine in a 9-0 decision.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman was a victory for free speech advocates, and it has important implications for future anti-abortion protests. The Court held that local officials violated Lefemine’s First Amendment rights by using South Carolina’s disturbing the peace law to shut down his protests.

The decision means that anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced simply because their message is controversial or offensive. It is a significant win for those who believe in the importance of free speech, regardless of the topic.

The Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman will likely have far-reaching implications for future anti-abortion protests. It means that protesters can continue to display graphic images of aborted fetuses without fear of legal repercussions.

However, the ruling also raises questions about the limits of free speech. While the First Amendment protects speech, it does not protect all forms of expression. Some may argue that graphic images of aborted fetuses are too extreme and should not be allowed in public spaces.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman is a significant victory for free speech advocates and anti-abortion protesters. While it raises questions about the limits of free speech, it also reinforces the importance of allowing controversial and offensive speech in public spaces.

The ruling sets an important precedent for future cases involving anti-abortion protests and free speech. It is a reminder that even in the midst of a heated political debate, the rights of individuals to express their opinions must be protected.

The first case to be ruled on in the new Supreme Court session this October was Lefemine v. Wideman. The case involves a Christian activist group that is involved in anti-abortion protests. Lefemine, as a member of this group, displayed graphic posters featuring images of aborted fetuses while protesting abortions in South Carolina.

In 2005, the group, Columbia Christians for Life, was protesting at a major intersection. Local residents were angered by the graphic displays, and called the police department to complain. Greenwood County police arrived on the scene and asked the protesters to remove the signs or be cited. Because the protesters did not want to risk getting a ticket, they peacefully disbanded the protest.

After Lefemine complained to the police department, he was told that if he continued to demonstrate with the signs, they would continue to interrupt demonstrations and potentially ticket protesters. As a result, Leftemine sued the police department for violating his First Amendment rights.

Both the district and appeals court held that Lefemine’s rights had indeed been violated by the police department, and gave the requested injunction against the police department. The Supreme Court case involved one major detail that had been left unresolved: attorney’s fees.

While the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did decide the case in Lefemine’s favor, they stopped short of allowing him to collect attorney fees from the police department. Lefemine appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for the fees to be paid.

The court traditionally awards attorney’s fees when someone has prevailed in a case. However, both the district and circuit courts hearing the case considered Lefemine not to have “prevailed” because he was awarded only an injunction against future illegal behavior, rather than any damages.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court’s assessment of this situation, ruling that in a lawsuit, a party prevails when their relative positions change because of the resolution to the lawsuit. Because Lefemine had already been told by the police department that they would cite him for breach of the peace for his signage if he continued to use it, and because after the injunction this would no longer occur, Lefemine had prevailed.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision made regarding attorney fees in the case. However, they also noted that the law makes an exception on the attorney fees rule for cases in which “special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Neither the police department’s attorneys nor Lefemine’s had made note of any such circumstances in their petition to the Court, so this decision was sent back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to make a ruling on.

This case has relevance not only to anti-abortion protesters but also to any demonstrators seeking attorney fees for their lawsuits. The ruling may make it significantly easier for groups to sue when they believe their right to assemble or protest has been violated by law enforcement.

Source: supremecourt.gov

Fisher Case Puts Affirmative Action in the Spotlight

Introduction

Affirmative action has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, but it is now in the spotlight once again due to Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas Austin. The case has significant implications for not just racial affirmative action, but also for policies that aim to increase diversity in traditionally male-dominated fields.

The Background

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement in 2005 left a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was eventually filled by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. This change opened the door for Fisher’s case to potentially reshape affirmative action policies across the country.

Abigail Fisher claimed that she was denied admission to the University of Texas Austin based on her race, and she argued that the school’s use of affirmative action was unconstitutional. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the University of Texas in a 4-3 decision.

The Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher’s case has significant implications for affirmative action policies. While the ruling affirmed that affirmative action is constitutional, it also placed limitations on how universities can use race as a factor in admissions decisions.

The decision allows universities to consider race in admissions, but only as a means of promoting diversity and only if race-neutral methods of achieving diversity are insufficient. This means that schools must prove that their affirmative action policies are necessary to achieve a diverse student body.

The case has broader implications for other forms of affirmative action as well. Policies that aim to increase diversity in traditionally male-dominated fields, for example, could be affected if universities are limited in their use of affirmative action.

The Future of Affirmative Action

The Fisher case and the Supreme Court’s decision highlight the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action and its place in American society. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to promote diversity and correct for past injustices, while opponents claim that it is unconstitutional and perpetuates discrimination.

As future cases make their way through the courts, it is likely that affirmative action will continue to be a contentious issue. The Fisher case, however, provides a framework for universities to use race-conscious admissions policies in a way that is constitutional and promotes diversity.

Conclusion

The Fisher case has put affirmative action in the spotlight, and its implications will be felt for years to come. While the Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action, it also placed limitations on how universities can use race in admissions decisions.

As the debate over affirmative action continues, it is important to remember the importance of diversity in American society and the need to promote equal opportunities for all.

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2005, she left room for a new swing vote to be nominated who could change affirmative action policy in the United States. Since O’Connor was replaced with the conservative Samuel Alito, Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas Austin may change how affirmative action looks in the United States. The case has implications not only for racial affirmative action, but also for policies like affirmative action for women applying to schools of engineering or other traditionally male fields.

Fisher’s case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in October, and the justices are expected to issue a ruling in the spring.

According to Abigail Fisher, a recent graduate of Louisiana State University, her earning power would have been significantly higher if she had graduated from the University of Texas Austin. What’s more, she claims that the reason she was not able to attend the University of Texas is that the university’s affirmative action policies discriminated against her for being white.

It is true that the University of Texas Austin uses race as a factor in its admissions policy. However, in accordance with the 2003 Supreme Court opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, race is only used as one of many factors in a holistic rating of a candidate. The ruling in Grutter allowed for this kind of holistic scoring system, while explicitly ruling that quota systems for racial or gender based affirmative action would not be considered constitutional.

However, Fisher’s case is an interesting one in several different ways. For one thing, it’s not clear that Fisher would have actually been granted admission to the University of Texas regardless of whether her racial background was white, black, or any other. According to the University’s metrics, Fisher’s lackluster standardized test scores and high school GPA would have been enough to bar her from admission even with additional points assigned for hardships or racial factors.

Additionally, it can be difficult for students to actually prove that they would have derived any benefit from having gone to a different school.

The case has been made even more interesting for court observers by Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself from the case due to having worked on it in her capacity as the United States Solicitor General under Barack Obama. This means that unlike in most Supreme Court cases, there is the possibility that the case would be tied, with the court’s four most conservative justices ruling against the Texas policy and the four liberal justices ruling in the university’s favor.

In the event of a tie, the lower court’s ruling is affirmed. In this case, that would mean the University’s policy is allowed to stand, which the appeals court had previously ruled. Questions during oral arguments from the conservative justices seemed to suggest that they, at least, would prefer to end the University’s affirmative action policies.

Sources: uscourts.gov, New York Times

Texas State Agencies Settle with EEOC For $175k

The Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office have agreed to pay a combined $175,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The two state agencies were accused of paying female employees less than men for jobs that required equal skills, effort, and responsibilities. The settlement agreement has avoided a trial and serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle for gender equality in the workplace.

The Allegations

The EEOC filed separate lawsuits against the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Both lawsuits accused the state agencies of paying female employees less than men for jobs that required equal work. The EEOC alleged that female employees were discriminated against based on their sex and that the state agencies had violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The state agencies denied any wrongdoing but have agreed to settle the lawsuits for a total of $175,000. The Texas Department of Agriculture will pay $75,000, while the Texas General Land Office will pay $100,000. The settlement agreement also includes provisions requiring the agencies to conduct training on equal pay practices and report their progress to the EEOC over the next two years.

The Importance of Equal Pay

The settlement is a reminder of the ongoing fight for gender equality in the workplace, particularly when it comes to equal pay. Women in the United States still earn only 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, with even wider disparities for women of color. In addition, women are often subject to discrimination and harassment in the workplace, further limiting their earning potential and career growth.

The EPA and Title VII are federal laws designed to address these disparities and ensure that men and women are paid equally for the same work. The EPA prohibits employers from paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, including inequitable pay practices.

Conclusion

The settlement between the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office and the EEOC is a victory for gender equality in the workplace, but there is still much work to be done. The wage gap continues to persist, and women remain subject to discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Employers must remain vigilant in ensuring that they are not engaging in discriminatory practices and that employees are paid fairly for their work, regardless of their sex. The settlement serves as a reminder that gender equality is a fundamental right, and one that must be fought for and protected in all areas of society.

The Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office have avoided a trial in sex discrimination lawsuits from current and former employees. The EEOC alleged that both state agencies had been paying women less than men for job duties requiring equal skills, effort, and responsibilities.

Court documents by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also stated that when the women complained about the wage discrimination issue, they were retaliated against by their employers. One of the employees repeatedly brought up pay discrepancies with her superiors, but no action was taken by them to remedy the situation.

The violations of federal law were noticed by an employee who discovered that male program specialists hired into the Disaster Recovery Division of the Texas Department of Rural Affairs were paid substantially more than women who obtained the same position. The total pay difference between male and female program specialists was as much as $18,000 to $20,000.

The TDRA’s disaster recovery division was eliminated for budget reasons in 2011. While the three plaintiff women were eliminated at the time when the department was, their two male colleagues were kept on, working in the same capacity in a different department within the agency.

According to the EEOC, the conduct of the TDRA violated the federal Equal Pay Act, which also applies to state and local government agencies. Damages in the settlement are equivalent to the back pay that would ensure that the women in the case were paid as much as their male counterparts.

Wage discrimination has been illegal at all levels of government since 1963, but discriminatory practices have often persisted. Due to the fact that people are often reluctant to discuss or ask for information about salaries of other people working in their departments, and due to the fact that it can be difficult to compare skill and experience levels, some of these wage discrimination issues are discovered only years after the fact.

The EEOC has seen a marked uptick in wage discrimination complaints in the last year. Part of the reason for the continued increase may have less to do with an increase in the incidence of wage discrimination and more to do with a continued effort on the part of the EEOC to identify and punish discriminatory employers. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has also made it substantially easier for employees to sue for wage discrimination even if they find out about the discrimination a long time after it begins.

Source: eeoc.gov, uscourts.gov

Indian Supreme Court Takes Steps To Stop Street Harassment

Sexual harassment on India’s streets, commonly known as “eve teasing,” has been a longstanding issue in the country. However, the Indian Supreme Court has taken a step towards addressing the problem by directing each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets. In this article, we explore the issue of street harassment in India and its impact on women, as well as the significance of the Supreme Court’s directives.

The Issue of Street Harassment in India

Street harassment, or “eve teasing,” has long been prevalent in India, with women frequently subjected to unwanted attention, comments and physical contact while in public spaces. It is a form of gender-based violence that affects millions of women across the country and can have serious consequences for their physical and mental well-being.

The harassment can take a variety of forms, from verbal abuse and wolf-whistling to groping and other acts of physical violence. Women are often blamed for provoking the harassment, with victim-blaming and shaming being common responses from both the public and law enforcement.

The Impact of Street Harassment on Women

The impact of street harassment on women is significant and far-reaching. It can lead to feelings of fear and anxiety, and can limit their ability to freely move about in public spaces. It can also cause psychological harm, such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Street harassment can also have economic consequences, as women may be deterred from pursuing education or employment opportunities if they feel unsafe in public spaces. It can also limit their social and civic engagement, further perpetuating gender inequality in the country.

The Supreme Court’s Directives

To address the problem of street harassment, the Indian Supreme Court has directed each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets. Each state is required to establish a nodal agency to receive and address complaints of sexual harassment in public spaces, as well as to deploy plainclothes policewomen to patrol these areas. The directives also call for the establishment of awareness campaigns to educate the public on the harm caused by street harassment.

The Supreme Court’s directives are significant, as they demonstrate a commitment to addressing the issue of street harassment and holding those responsible for perpetrating it accountable. They also send a message to women across the country that their safety and well-being are a priority for the government.

Conclusion

Street harassment is a serious issue in India that affects millions of women and perpetuates gender inequality. The Indian Supreme Court’s directives to each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets is a positive step towards ending this harmful practice. It is now up to each state to take action to make public spaces safe for women, and to work towards creating a more equal and just society.

Sexual harassment on India’s streets, a practice commonly known there as “eve teasing,” is a problem that must be alleviated within three months, according to directives given by the Indian Supreme Court this week. The Supreme Court has directed each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets.

Some of the remedies that the high court proposed included cameras placed in public areas where sexual harassment or even sexual violence are most common. Helplines to be dialed by victims of unwanted male attention could also be useful to help catch men who are harassing women. “Eve teasing” can take several forms in India, ranging from verbal bullying to catcalls or even flashing of the genitals or groping.

Another strategy recommended by the Indian Supreme Court is to have female police officers in plain clothes watching areas where harassment is likely. By having women officers present and able to arrest men who engage in harassing behavior toward them, the harassing behavior would likely stop in that location very quickly.

Surveys in India have consistently shown that sexual harassment is not regarded as a problem by a large number of boys and men. While men have said that women are simply being “teased,” women have reported significant psychological problems as a result of repeated street harassment and eve teasing.

The 26 page Indian Supreme Court judgment also warns of disatrous consequences including suicide for girls who are relentlessly teased. According to them, even being on public transit can be “a horrendous and painful ordeal.”

Private organizations and smaller public departments were also called upon to watch for incidents of harassment and take steps to prevent them from recurring. For example, because many incidents of eve teasing occur on India’s many overcrowded buses and other public transit options, the court says that transit operators should be required to file a police complaint when a woman complains about sexual harassment. Failure to comply would automatically result in a cancellation of permits, meaning that the bus would not be able to continue operating.

The Court noted that the Indian Constitution assures all of its citizens the “right to live with dignity and honour.” According to the judges, three different articles of the Indian Constitution have been violated because of the states’ repeated unwillingness to tackle the problem of ongoing and pervasive sexual harassment in public places.

Sources: timesofindia.com, supremecourtofindia.nic.in, in.com

Jim Crow Laws

Introduction

Jim Crow laws were a series of state and local laws in the southern United States that enforced racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans. These laws were in effect from the late 1800s until the mid-1960s and had a significant impact on American history.

Origins and Purpose of Jim Crow Laws

Jim Crow laws were named after a popular 19th-century minstrel show character and were designed to maintain white supremacy in the South. The laws were passed by state and local governments and enforced racial segregation in public spaces such as schools, parks, and transportation.

Segregation in Public Spaces

Under Jim Crow laws, African Americans were forced to use separate facilities from whites, including separate schools, water fountains, and restaurants. They were not allowed to sit in the front of buses or attend the same schools as whites.

Voting Rights Restrictions

Jim Crow laws also restricted African Americans’ right to vote, through a range of tactics such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. These laws were designed to effectively disenfranchise black voters, denying them the right to participate in the democratic process.

Resistance and Overturning of Jim Crow Laws

Despite their intended purpose, Jim Crow laws sparked widespread resistance and activism among African Americans and their allies. Civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks led protests and movements to challenge these discriminatory laws and push for racial equality.

The legal system also played a role in overturning Jim Crow laws. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, paving the way for further legal challenges to discriminatory laws.

Legacy of Jim Crow Laws

Despite being officially abolished in the 1960s, the legacy of Jim Crow laws continues to impact American society today. African Americans continue to experience systemic racism and discrimination, often in the form of economic and social inequality.

Conclusion

Jim Crow laws were a dark period in American history, reflecting deeply ingrained attitudes of racial superiority. While they have been officially overturned, their legacy continues to shape society today, underscoring the ongoing need to fight against racism and discrimination in all its forms.

Jim Crow Laws

One of the most shameful chapters in United States legal history is the proliferation and enforcement of so-called “Jim Crow laws,” implemented after Reconstruction to take away the rights of newly freed black people. For decades, Jim Crow laws prevented black U.S. citizens and residents from enjoying the same facilities and public spaces that white people were allowed to use. Although these laws were overturned by important court cases and federal statutes in the mid-20th century, some of their effects can still be felt today.

How Jim Crow Laws Began

In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Congress worked to pass three Constitutional amendments. The first, the Thirteenth Amendment, specifically forbade slavery except as punishment for a crime. The Fourteenth Amendment granted due process rights and equal protection to all American citizens. The Fifteenth Amendment granted black Americans an equal right to vote. Southern states opposed these laws vociferously, but were forced into accepting them in order to rejoin the United States without incurring sanctions.

The Reconstruction period from 1865 to 1877 was a time of patchwork laws regarding the legal status of black Americans. However, soon after, states began to pass a series of laws that limited where black people could go and what they could do. Segregation became the norm, on public transportation, at drinking fountains, and in public restrooms, as well as at restaurants and hotels. Discrimination was widely practiced and extremely pervasive.

Plessy v. Ferguson

The first major challenge to the Jim Crow laws came in the form of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which Homer Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black, sat in a “whites only” part of a public transit vehicle. When he was removed due to Louisiana’s laws, he sued in federal court, saying that his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated.

The court didn’t see it that way. Ignoring the fact that Louisiana’s train cars for blacks and whites were far from equally appointed, the court ruled that mere separation of black and white people didn’t constitute illegal discrimination. Jim Crow laws were allowed to continue under the doctrine of “separate but equal” set down in Plessy v. Ferguson, even though much as in Louisiana, facilities were rarely if ever actually equal for blacks and whites.

Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act

The first court case that reversed the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. The judges in this case ruled unanimously that separate facilities were inherently unequal, and required schools to be integrated.

However, without enforcement powers, it was very difficult for a single Supreme Court ruling to make any dent in the Jim Crow laws. It took the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made federal funding contingent on integration, to force states to end their discriminatory laws. Slowly, the Jim Crow laws became relegated to history textbooks as they were written out of state codes.

Kansas-Nebraska Act Text

Introduction

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a piece of legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1854. It was controversial at the time and is still remembered today for its impact on the issue of slavery in America. In this article, we will provide an overview of the Kansas-Nebraska Act text, including its history, provisions, and impact.

History of the Kansas-Nebraska Act

In the years leading up to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, tensions were growing between the Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. In an effort to ease these tensions and facilitate the expansion of the nation, Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois proposed a bill that would divide the territory into two new states: Kansas and Nebraska.

The bill was controversial because it proposed that the issue of slavery in these new states would be decided by popular sovereignty, meaning that the residents of each state would vote on whether or not to allow slavery. This was a departure from the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36° 30′ parallel.

Provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Text

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a complex piece of legislation, but some of its key provisions included:

– The territory of Kansas and Nebraska would be divided, with Kansas situated to the south and Nebraska to the north.

– The issue of slavery in these new states would be decided by popular sovereignty, meaning that the residents of each state would vote on whether or not to allow slavery.

– The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36° 30′ parallel, would be repealed.

Impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Text

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was controversial from the beginning and had a significant impact on the issue of slavery in America. The act led to the formation of the Republican Party, which was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery into new territories.

The act also led to a period of violence in Kansas, known as “Bleeding Kansas,” in which pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces clashed over the issue of whether or not to allow slavery in the state. This violence foreshadowed the coming Civil War and highlighted the deep-seated divisions between the North and South over the issue of slavery.

Conclusion

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a landmark piece of legislation that had a significant impact on the issue of slavery in America. Its provisions, which allowed for popular sovereignty in deciding the issue of slavery in new states, were controversial at the time and led to a period of violence in Kansas. While the act was repealed in 1860, its legacy continues to be felt today and serves as a reminder of the challenges that America has faced in its struggle for equality and justice.

An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit: beginning at a point in the Missouri River where the fortieth parallel of north latitude crosses the same; then west on said parallel to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah, the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence on said summit northwest to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the territory of Minnesota; thence southward on said boundary to the Missouri River; thence down the main channel of said river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the Territory Nebraska; and when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of the admission: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Territories, in such manner and at such time as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching a portion of said Territory to any other State or Territory of the United States: Provided further, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining the Indians in said Territory’ so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial line or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Nebraska, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within the said Territory of Nebraska or to affect the authority of the government of the United States make any regulations respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.

SEC. 2. And Be it further enacted, That the executive power and authority in and over said Territory of Nebraska shall be vested in a Governor who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. The Governor shall reside within said Territory, and shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof. He may grant pardons and respites for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the President can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the aid Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SEC. 3. And Be it further enacted, That there shall be a Secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his executive department; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and journals of the Legislative Assembly within thirty days after the end of each session, and one copy of the executive proceedings and official correspondence semi-annually, on the first days of January and July in each year to the President of the United States, and two copies of the laws to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to be deposited in the libraries of Congress, and in or case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the Governor from the Territory, the Secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the Governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another Governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancy.

SEC 4. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters, as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six members, possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the Council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. The number of representatives may be increased by the Legislative Assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters: Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed thirty-nine. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal as practicable, among the several counties or districts, for the election of the council and representatives, giving to each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its qualified voters as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district or county, or counties for which they may be elected, respectively. Previous to the first election, the Governor shall cause a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the Territory, to be taken by such persons and in such mode as the Governor shall designate and appoint; and the persons so appointed shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. And the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, both as to the persons who shall superintend such election and the returns thereof, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall at the same time declare the number of members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said council districts for members of the Council, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected to the Council; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the House of Representatives, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected members of said house: Provided, That in case two or more persons voted for shall have an equal number of votes, and in case a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall order a new election; and the persons thus elected to the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the Governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Representatives, according to the number of qualified voters, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of forty days, except the first session, which may continue sixty days.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years who shall be an actual resident of said Territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States and those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act: And provided further, That no officer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said Territory, by reason of being on service therein.

SEC. 6. And Be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. Every bill which shall have passed the Council and House of Representatives of the said Territory shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Governor of the Territory; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Assembly, by adjournment, prevents its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Nebraska. The Governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise provided for; and in the first instance the Governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first session of the Legislative Assembly; and shall lay off the necessary districts for members of the Council and House of Representatives, and all other officers.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That no member of the Legislative Assembly shall hold, or be appointed to, any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased, while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; but this restriction shall not be applicable to members of the first Legislative Assembly; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except Postmasters, shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly, or hold any office under the government of said Territory.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, and in Justices of the Peace. The Supreme Court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said Territory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years, and until their successor shall be appointed and qualified. The said Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a d district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by of law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the districts which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said supreme and districts courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each District Court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals, shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said district courts to the Supreme Court, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law; but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The Supreme Court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been appointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error, or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decision of the said Supreme Court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of personal freedom: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions to the ” act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the ” act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and Laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the said Supreme and District Courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising under the said constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive in all such cases the same fees which the clerks of the district courts of Utah Territory now receive for similar services.

SEC. 10. And Be it further enacted, That the provisions of an act entitled “An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February twelve, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the provisions of the act entitled ” An act to amend, and supplementary to, the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and be in full force within the limits of said Territory of Nebraska.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an Attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary I as the Attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Utah. There shall also be a Marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts when exercising their jurisdiction as Circuit and District Courts of the United States; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regulation and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees, as the Marshal of the District Court of the United States for the present Territory of Utah, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services.

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, and Associate Justices, Attorney and Marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The Governor and a Secretary to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation before the District Judge or some Justice of the Peace in the limits of said Territory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or & before the Chief Justice, or some Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices, which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken; and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said Secretary among the Executive proceedings; and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation before the said Governor or Secretary, or some Judge or Justice of the Peace of the Territory, who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the Secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and, afterwards, the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall each receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, from the dates of the respective appointments, at the Treasury of the United States; but no such payment shall be made until said officers shall have entered upon the duties of their respective appointments. The members of the Legislative Assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles’ travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route; and an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house for each day he shall so preside. And a chief clerk, one assistant clerk, a sergeant-at-arms, and doorkeeper, may be chosen for each house; and the chief clerk shall receive four dollars per day, and the said other officers three dollars per day, during the session of the Legislative Assembly; but no other officers shall be paid by the United States: Provided, That there shall be but one session of the legislature annually, unless, on an extraordinary occasion, the Governor shall think proper to call the legislature together. There shall be appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be expended by the Governor, to defray the contingent expenses of the Territory, including the salary of a clerk of the Executive Department; and there shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the Secretary of the Territory, and upon an estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the Legislative Assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses; and the Governor and Secretary of the Territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely by the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and shall, semi-annually, account to the said Secretary for the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended; and no expenditure shall be made by said Legislative Assembly for objects not specially authorized by the acts of Congress, making the appropriations, nor beyond the sums thus appropriated for such objects.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Nebraska shall hold its first session at such time and place in said Territory as the Governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said first session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the Governor and Legislative Assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said Territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which place, however, shall thereafter be subject to be changed by the said Governor and Legislative Assembly.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve for the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the Legislative Assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other Territories of the United States to the said House of Representatives, but the delegate first elected shall hold his seat only during the term of the Congress to which he shall be elected. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections the times, places, and manner of holding the elections, shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected; and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly. That the Constitution, and all Laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slaves in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.

SEC. 15. And Be it further enacted, That there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the Territorial governments, sufficient amount, to be expended under the direction of the said Governor of the Territory of Nebraska, not exceeding the sums heretofore appropriated for similar objects, for the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of government, and for the purchase of a library, to be kept at the seat of government for the use of the Governor, Legislative Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court, Secretary, Marshal, and Attorney of said Territory, and such other persons, and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law.

SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, section; numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Territory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Territories hereafter to be erected out of the same.

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That, until otherwise provided by law, the Governor of said Territory may define the Judicial Districts of said Territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said Territory to the several districts; and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said Judicial Districts by proclamation, to be issued by him; but the Legislative Assembly, at their first or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such Judicial Districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts, as to them shall seem proper and convenient.

SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That all officers to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the Territory of Nebraska, who, by virtue of the provisions of any law now existing, or which may be enacted during the present Congress, are required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursement, shall give such security, at such time and place, and in such manner, as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That al1 that part of the Territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit, beginning at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri, where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight; thence following said boundary westward to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence northward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude, thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the State of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said State to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Kansas; and when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Territories, in such manner and at such times as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said Territory to any other State or Territory of the United States: Provided further, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Kansas, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within the said Territory of Kansas, or to affect the authority of the government of the United States to make any regulation respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.

SEC. 20. And be it further enacted, That the executive power and chin authority in and over said Territory of Kansas shall be vested in a Governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. The Governor shall reside within said Territory, and shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof. He may grant pardons and respites for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the President can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SEC. 21. And be it further enacted, That there shall be a Secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his Executive Department; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and journals of the Legislative Assembly within thirty days after the end of each session, and one copy of the executive proceedings and official correspondence semi-annually, on the first days of January and July in each year, to the President of the United States, and two copies of the laws to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to be deposited in the libraries of Congress; and, in case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the Governor from the Territory, the Secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the Governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another Governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancy.

SEC. 22. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters, as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six members possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the Council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. The number of representatives may be increased by the Legislative Assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters: Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed thirty-nine. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal as practicable, among the several counties or districts, for the election of the Council and Representatives, giving to each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its qualified voters as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district or county, or counties, for which they may be elected, respectively. Previous to the first election, the Governor shall cause a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the Territory, to be taken by such persons and in such mode as the Governor shall designate and appoint; and the persons so appointed shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. And the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, both as to the persons who shall superintend such election and the returns thereof, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall at the same time declare the number of members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said Council Districts for members of the Council, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected to the Council; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the House of Representatives, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected members of said house: Provided, That in case two or more persons voted for shall have an equal number of votes, and in case of a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall order a new election; and the persons thus elected to the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the Governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Representatives, according to the number of qualified t voters, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of forty days, except the first session, which may continue sixty days.

SEC. 23. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an actual resident of said Territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared, on oath, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act: And, provided further, That no officer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said Territory by reason of being on service therein.

SEC. 24. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposa1 of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other properly of residents. Every bill which shall have passed the Council and House of Representatives of the said Territory shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Governor of the Territory; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which, it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal of each house, respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Assembly, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

SEC. 25. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and; county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas. The Governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise provided for; and, in the first instance, the Governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first session of the Legislative Assembly; and shall lay off the necessary districts for members of the Council and House of Representatives, and all other officers.

SEC. 26. And be it further enacted, That no member of the Legislative Assembly shall hold, or be appointed to, any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased, while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; but this restriction shall not be applicable to members of the first Legislative Assembly; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly, or shall hold any office under the government of said Territory.

SEC. 27. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The Supreme Court shall Consist of chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said Territory annually; and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years, and until their successors shall be appointed and qualified. The said Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the districts which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Said District Court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said district courts to the Supreme Court, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law; but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The Supreme Court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been appointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decisions of said supreme court, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writ of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decision of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of personal freedom: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions of the ” act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February twelfth, – seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the ” act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the said supreme and district courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising under the said Constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall-be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive the same fees in all such cases, which the clerks of the district courts of Utah Territory now receive for similar services.

SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of the act entitled ” An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from, the service of their masters,” approved February twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the provisions of the act entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and be in full force within the limits of the said Territory of Kansas.

SEC. 29. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the Attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Utah. There shall also be a marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts where exercising their jurisdiction as Circuit and District Courts of the United States; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regulations and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees, as the Marshal of the District Court of the United States for the present Territory of Utah, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services.

SEC. 30. And be it further enacted, That the Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, and Associate Justices, Attorney, and Marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The Governor and Secretary to be appointed as aforesaid shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation before the district judge or some justice of the peace in the limits of said Territory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or before the Chief Justice or some Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices, which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken; and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said secretary among the executive proceedings; and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation before the said Governor or Secretary, or some Judge or Justice of the Peace of the Territory who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the Secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and, afterwards, the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall receive as an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, from the dates of the respective appointments, at the Treasury of the United States; but no such payment shall be made until said officers shall have entered upon the duties of their respective appointments. The members of the Legislative Assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles’ travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route; and an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house for each day he shall so preside. And a chief clerk, one assistant clerk, a sergeant at-arms, and door-keeper, may be chosen for each house; and the chief clerk shall receive four dollars per day, and the said other officers three dollars per day, during the session of the Legislative Assembly; but no to other officers shall be paid by the United States: Provided, That there shall be but one session of the Legislature annually, unless, on an extraordinary occasion, the Governor shall think proper to call the Legislature together. There shall be appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be expended by the Governor, to defray the contingent expenses of the Territory, including the salary of a clerk of the Executive Department and there shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the Secretary of the Territory, and upon an estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the Legislative Assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses; and the Governor and Secretary of the Territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely by the instructions of the secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and shall, semi-annually, account to the said secretary for lit the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended; and no expenditure shall be made by said Legislative Assembly for objects not specially authorized by the acts of Congress making the appropriations, nor beyond the sums thus appropriated for such objects.

SEC. 31. And be it further enacted, That the seat of government of said Territory is hereby located temporarily at Fort Leavenworth; and that such portions of the public buildings as may not be actually used and needed for military purposes, may be occupied and used, under the direction of the Governor and Legislative Assembly, for such public purposes as may be required under the provisions of this act.

SEC. 32. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve for the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the Legislative Assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other Territories of the United States to the said House of Representatives, but the delegate first elected shall hold his seat only during the term of the Congress to which he shall be elected. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections, the times, places, and manner of holding the elections shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly. That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth of March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.

SEC. 33. And be it further enacted; That there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the territorial governments, a sufficient amount, to be expended under the direction of the said Governor of the Territory of Kansas, not exceeding the sums heretofore appropriated for similar objects, for the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of government, and for the purchase of a library, to be kept at the seat of government for the use of the Governor, Legislative Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court, Secretary, Marshal, and Attorney of said Territory, and such other persons, and under such regulations, as shall be prescribed by law.

SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Territory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Territories hereafter to be erected out of the same.

SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That, until otherwise provided by law, the Governor of said Territory may define the Judicial Districts of said Territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said Territory to the several districts; and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said judicial districts by proclamation, to be issued by him; but the Legislative Assembly, at their first or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such judicial districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts as to them shall seem proper and convenient.

SEC. 36. And be it further enacted, That all officers to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the Territory of Kansas, who, by virtue of the provisions of any law now existing, or which may be enacted during the present Congress, are required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursement, shall give such security, at such time and place, and in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

SEC. 37. And be it further enacted, That all treaties, laws, and other, engagements made by the government of the United States with the Indian tribes inhabiting the territories embraced within this act, shall be faithfully and rigidly observed, notwithstanding any thing contained in this act; and that the existing agencies and superintendencies of said Indians be continued with the same powers and duties which are now prescribed by law, except that the President of the United States may, at his discretion, change the location of the office of superintendent.

Approved, May 30, 1854.

Washington State Bill would Permit Businesses to Deny Gays

Introduction

Recently, a group of Republican lawmakers in Washington State introduced a bill that seeks to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals under the guise of religious freedom. The bill was introduced shortly after a local florist was sued for denying service to a gay couple. This bill has sparked controversy and pushback from civil rights advocates.

Background on Anti-Discrimination Laws

Washington State currently has strong anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These laws were put in place to protect LGBTQ+ individuals and ensure equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations. However, some lawmakers are now seeking to undermine these laws.

Bill Seeking Exemption for Businesses

The newly introduced bill seeks to create an exemption to Washington State’s anti-discrimination laws for businesses that operate based on religious beliefs. This would allow businesses to legally discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, specifically in the context of wedding services. This bill would grant businesses free reign to deny services to same-sex couples without facing legal repercussions.

Implications for LGBTQ+ Community

If passed, this bill would have harmful consequences for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly same-sex couples seeking wedding services. It would set a dangerous precedent that discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is acceptable if rooted in religious beliefs. Many fear that this would lead to a surge in discrimination and hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community.

Opposition and Advocacy Efforts

Civil rights advocates have spoken out against this bill, arguing that it goes against the values of equality and non-discrimination. Many are calling on lawmakers to reject this bill and uphold anti-discrimination laws. Advocacy efforts are also underway to raise awareness about the harmful implications of such a bill and to fight for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

Conclusion

The proposed bill seeking an exemption to anti-discrimination laws in Washington State would have devastating consequences for the LGBTQ+ community. This bill would allow businesses to deny service to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs, setting a dangerous precedent for discrimination. It is crucial that lawmakers and advocates continue to speak out against this bill and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

A number of Republican lawmakers filed a bill today seeking an exemption to the state’s anti-discrimination statutes just weeks after legal action was initiated against a local florist who denied service to a homosexual couple for their upcoming wedding.

The piece of legislation introduced by Republican Senator Sharon Brown would allow local businesses the right to deny goods or services if they felt doing so went against their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs, or sincere matters of conscience.

This measure would not apply to the denial of goods or services to individuals who are deemed as part of a protected class under federal law—meaning the goods or services cannot be denied based on the customer’s religion, disability or race.

Brown claims that the measure seeks to protect people or religious bodies from legal persecution. “There is a glaring lack of protection for religion in our state’s laws,” said Brown.

Moreover signing on to the bill were Senators Janea Holmquist, Mike Hewitt, Don Benton, Jim Honeyford, Mike Padden, John Smith, John Braun, Linda Evans and Ann Rivers.

The piece of legislation has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing nor has it been placed in front of a committee. The bill is not likely to encounter such measures before the regular legislative concludes this Sunday. That said, if a special session is called for as expected, the bill could be heard during this juncture.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union in our nation’s capital filed a lawsuit in response to a March incident in which Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide service for Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll’s wedding, despite the two men being longtime customers of her flower shop. The shop, which is in Brown’s district, was the subject of a consumer protection lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Ferguson delivered a letter last month asking the florist to comply with the law, but said Stutzman responded by saying she would refute any state action to enforce the statute.

While Washington State voters legalized gay marriage in November of 2012, protections against discriminations based on sexual orientation were previously codified. Under state law, it is illegal for any business to refuse to sell goods or execute services to any individual because of their sexual orientation.

Court Issues Indictment Against East Haven Police Officers

Introduction

On September 25, 2012, a federal court issued a superseding indictment against three East Haven police officers. The indictment accuses the officers of violating the civil rights of community members in the East Haven area. This article will provide an overview of the indictment and its implications.

Background on the East Haven Police Officers

The three East Haven police officers—David Cari, Dennis Spaulding, and Jason Zullo—had previously been indicted in January 2012 on charges of conspiracy to commit police misconduct, false arrest, and excessive force. The new superseding indictment expands on those charges, including accusations of racial profiling and conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights.

Accusations of Civil Rights Violations

The indictment accuses the East Haven police officers of engaging in a pattern of discriminatory behavior, including targeting Latinos and using excessive force against them. The officers allegedly made false arrests, used racial slurs, and engaged in other forms of misconduct.

Consequences for the Officers and Community

If found guilty, the East Haven police officers could face significant legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. The indictment also has implications for the East Haven community, particularly for Latino residents who have been subject to alleged discriminatory behavior by the police.

Response to the Indictment

The indictment has sparked a range of responses, including protests and calls for accountability. Community members, civil rights advocates, and politicians have spoken out against the alleged misconduct, calling for reform and greater police accountability.

Moving Forward

The East Haven police officers’ indictment highlights larger issues of police misconduct and systemic discrimination in law enforcement. It underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and reform in police departments across the country to ensure that civil rights are protected and respected for all members of the community.

Conclusion

The court’s indictment of the three East Haven police officers on civil rights violations is a significant development in the ongoing struggle for police accountability and the protection of civil rights. While the officers are innocent until proven guilty, the charges raise important questions about the role of law enforcement in ensuring equal justice under the law.

On September 25, 2012, the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut and the FBI’s New York Office announced a superseding indictment against David Cari, Dennis Spaulding, and Jason Zullo—all East Haven Police Officers. The men are accused of violating civil rights of members in the East Haven area.

According to the superseding indictment, the police officers committed 35 acts that violated civil rights. The three officers conducted unreasonable searches and seizures, used unreasonable force during arrests, and wrote false reports about the arrests. Many of these arrests were directed toward Latino community members, and many of the unreasonable searches and seizures were directed toward Latino-owned businesses.

Particularly, the new charges against Zullo add onto an incident that occurred in October of 2008. Officer Zullo was charged after he repeatedly hit a traveling motorcycle with two passengers with his squad car. The motorcycle crashed and the two victims were thrown to the ground. Zullo then proceeded to punch one of the victims, who was already injured and pinned to the ground, and then wrote a false police report.

Each of the defendants is charged with one count of conspiracy against rights. Officer Zullo is charged with three counts of using unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer, and Officer Spalding received one similar charge. Officer Spalding is also charged with two counts of deprivation of rights for making arrests with enough probably cause, and Cari is facing one similar charge.

The men still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. Spaulding, Zullo, and Cari all face one charge of obstruction of a federal investigation as well. Each count carries of maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

New Jersey District Resolves Civil Rights Violation

Introduction

The East Orange School District in New Jersey has recently resolved a civil rights violation case with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The case involved allegations of racial discrimination in discipline practices within the district. The agreement reached marks an important step towards addressing issues of systemic racism in schools.

Background on the Case

The East Orange School District was under investigation by the Office for Civil Rights for alleged discrimination against African American students in the administration of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. The investigation uncovered evidence of racial disparities in discipline, with black students being disproportionately affected by disciplinary actions compared to their white peers.

Resolution Agreement

The resolution agreement between the Department of Education and the East Orange School District outlines a plan for addressing the issues of racial discrimination in disciplinary practices. The district has agreed to implement a series of measures to address the disparities in discipline, including training for staff on issues of cultural competency and implicit bias, as well as implementing restorative justice practices in lieu of traditional disciplinary practices.

Implications for Education and Civil Rights

The resolution of this case has significant implications for both education and civil rights. It highlights the importance of addressing systemic issues of racism within schools that continue to disproportionately impact students of color. The agreement reached between the Department of Education and the East Orange School District serves as a model for other districts to follow in addressing similar issues of racial discrimination.

Moving Forward

Going forward, it is crucial that efforts to address systemic racism in schools continue. This includes examining disciplinary practices, hiring practices, and curriculum to ensure that all students are receiving an education that is free from discrimination. Additionally, efforts must be made to ensure that students who have been affected by discriminatory practices receive adequate support and resources.

Conclusion

The resolution of the case between the East Orange School District and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights marks an important step towards addressing issues of systemic racism within schools. It highlights the importance of addressing issues of discrimination in disciplinary practices and serves as a model for other districts to follow. It is crucial that efforts to address systemic racism in education continue moving forward.

The Department of Education has been involved in an ongoing case with the East Orange School District in New Jersey after the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) found the school was in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The OCR announced they reached an agreement with the school district on October 1, 2012.

The OCR initially started the investigation to see if the school district was inappropriately placing qualified students with a disability in separate classrooms instead of a regular class which is required by Section 504 and Title II. The investigation concluded that the school district was placing other qualified disabled students in “self-contained classrooms.” The OCR revealed that between 2010 and 2011, the district had a total of 1,462 disabled students and 64 percent were placed in “self-contained placements.” Furthermore, 535 of the students with learning disabilities were placed in “self-contained settings.”

The district worked alongside OCR during the investigation, and a resolution agreement was reached. The district agreed to create new procedures for placing qualified disabled students in regular classroom settings unless the district concludes in writing that the student cannot reach satisfactory results even with the help of aids or additional services.

The district will also train staff with new teaching practices, and the district will also launch a review of all disabled students who are currently in self-contained settings. If parents or guardians are still displeased with the placement, the district announces they will respect their right to a due process hearing.

Russlynn Ali, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, states, “Whenever possible, students with disabilities should be education in regular educational programs in our nation’s public schools. I applaud the steps the East Orange School District has agreed to take to address immediate concerns and to put systems in place to help ensure its compliance with Section 504 and Title II.”

Source: U.S. Department of Education

1...345 6 Page 4 of 6