During a Global Pandemic and Period of Nationwide Protests for Racial Justice, Does the Biden-Sanders Platform Meet the Moment?
In just over 100 days, Americans will vote not just for an individual candidate to occupy the Oval Office, but for a vision of the next era of the United States. That vision will hold answers to a range of key questions: Will we continue to restrict access to abortion for the most vulnerable? Will we continue to force local law enforcement to do the job of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), regardless of the consequences? Will we continue our racist system of mass incarceration that has harmed Black and Brown communities for decades? Since March 2019, the ACLU’s campaign has sought answers to these questions, getting presidential candidates on the record on key civil liberties issues and educating voters on their responses.
Our view is that it’s not enough for presidential candidates to talk generally about their values and offer platitudes on the campaign trail. We need to know what their specific policies would be, and how they would institute those policies — and advance rights for all — if they secure the presidency.
One indication we have on how Joe Biden, the presumed Democratic nominee, might perform is found in the recently released . While not a definitive plan, it provides us with key insights into what a Joe Biden presidency would prioritize — and the results are mixed in terms of rights for all.
Take reproductive rights for instance. Back in May 2019, if, as president, he would end the Hyde Amendment, a ban on abortion coverage for people enrolled in Medicaid that has denied care to people with low incomes — disproportionately — for more than 40 years. Biden said “yes.”
Biden’s pledge to our volunteer to end Hyde was a from his decades-long held position. Now, the Biden-Sanders task force recommendations reaffirm that promise to repeal Hyde, but don’t offer much on how exactly he’ll do that.
And the details matter. That’s why we’re Biden’s feet to the fire on this commitment, and pushing him to move the nation forward and expand access to abortion. We want Biden to clearly outline how he’ll eliminate abortion coverage restrictions and ensure that people can access abortion, no matter how much money they have or how they get their insurance. For starters, we need him to make a firm commitment to remove all abortion coverage restrictions from his first budget, and tell Congress he won’t sign bills with abortion coverage restrictions, if he is elected.
Advancing rights for all also includes the 2.3 million individuals who are incarcerated in local, state, and federal prisons and jails nationwide. Everyday, our nation's leaders deny millions of Americans their humanity and justice, further securing the United States’ title as the biggest jailer in the world.
So where’s Biden on ending mass incarceration? Just two months after Biden promised to end the Hyde Amendment, he also pledged to an ACLU volunteer to . Reducing our incarceration rate by 50 percent is a long overdue step towards liberation for millions of Americans trapped in an oppressive system. And it should very much be a priority for Joe Biden, given his role in pushing the 1994 Crime Bill, which helped create this crisis. Unfortunately, this commitment is missing from the released Biden-Sanders recommendations.
The Biden-Sanders platform takes positive steps by recommending the end of private prisons, which create perverse incentives for increased incarceration. It discusses the elimination of cash bail, and terminating mandatory minimum sentences. But it is silent on the concrete commitment to cut incarceration by 50 percent, and the component pieces referenced in the platform are unlikely to get us there. The nation is demanding transformational leadership in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, and we need Biden to send the right signals. Without reaffirming a north star of 50 percent decarceration, one is left to wonder what will be the impact of Biden’s agenda.
Moving the nation forward also requires a commitment to equality for our nation’s immigrants, who are ensnared in a racist system designed to target people of color. Our vision of rights for all calls for an immediate end to collaboration between ICE and local law enforcement.
In July 2019, an ACLU volunteer asked Biden where he stood on this issue, and he to remove local law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement, including by ending the use of detainers. In the Biden-Sanders platform, there is a call to reverse the unjust use of 287(g) and similar programs that force local law enforcement to take on the role of immigration enforcement. We need follow-through on this agenda. Especially in the face of a devastating pandemic, we need all members of our communities to trust local government officials, and that cannot happen if immigrants are constantly in fear that local government actors are immigration agents in disguise.
The Biden-Sanders platform moves the fight to ensure rights for all an important step forward, but it doesn’t go far enough. If we want to end Hyde and all abortion coverage restrictions, get to 50 percent decarceration, and cut forced collaboration between immigration enforcement and local police, we need to keep the pressure on the Biden campaign. We must demand that the Biden campaign adopt these policy recommendations and articulate how it intends to institute them. Anything short of a clear roadmap is unacceptable. America deserves leaders who will act with urgency to make the dream of freedom and justice for all real for every person in this country.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.