Voting Rights

Your Civil Rights and the Election

From the Department t of Justice:

The Civil Rights Division’s Disability Rights Section enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination in voting based on disability. The ADA applies to all aspects of voting, including voter registration, selection and accessibility of voting facilities, and the casting of ballots on Election Day or during early voting, whether in-person or absentee.

The Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and voter suppression based on race, color, national origin, or religion.

On Election Day, the Civil Rights Division will implement a comprehensive program to help ensure the right to vote that will include the following:

• The Civil Rights Division will conduct monitoring in the field to observe compliance with the federal voting rights statutes.

• Civil Rights Division attorneys in the Voting, Disability Rights, and Criminal Sections in Washington, D.C., will be ready to receive complaints of potential violations of any of the statutes the Civil Rights Division enforces. Attorneys in the division will coordinate within the department and will take appropriate action concerning these complaints before, during, and after Election Day.

• Individuals with complaints related to possible violations of the federal voting rights laws can call the Justice Department’s toll-free telephone line at: 800-253-3931, and also can submit complaints through a link on the department’s website at: https://civilrights.justice.gov/.

• Individuals with questions or complaints related to the ADA may call the Justice Department’s toll-free ADA information line at 800-514-0301 or 833-610-1264 (TTY), or submit a complaint through a link on the department’s ADA website at ada.gov.

ADAPT's Consistency in Advocacy

ADAPT’s success in the case MR v Dreyfus was spectacular; but did you notice some similarities with an earlier ADAPT campaign?

Editor's Note: This is a look back Ten Years Ago Today at the issues of the disability community. Ten years ago the state of Washington ended its appeal of MR v Dreyfus; More than ten years before that, ADAPT was successful in getting the state of Washington to remove their support for Olmstead. 

By Tim Wheat

ADAPT and our allies' success in making Washington Governor Christine Gregoire end the appeal of MR v Dreyfus was a terrific grass-roots success. Some long-time ADAPT activists however may be reminded of a similar campaign in late 1998 and early 1999 to convince US states to remove their names from an amicus brief in support of the state of Georgia that was going to the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1998, Tommy Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, struggled to keep two women locked away in institutions even though the state’s professionals had found them more suited for the community. Georgia lost in the 11th US Circuit Court and was appealing the case to the US Supreme Court. Commissioner Olmstead argued that forcing citizens to live in institutions does not constitute discrimination because non-disabled people do not receive such services. No "discrimination" in service delivery can take place if no comparable services exist. The ADA gives no protection to individuals with disabilities, Georgia argued, who receive services designed only for people with disabilities.

Georgia was successful in getting over half the US States to support their appeal to the US Supreme Court by signing on to a friend-of-the-court brief that argued home and community services would become a “new entitlement." The amicus brief of the states also perversely contended that even though home and community services were less costly than expensive institutionalization, the ADA’s requirement for integration would be a financial burden to states and would be an “unfunded mandate” from the federal government impeding state sovereignty.

But ADAPT was clear. This was an issue of Civil Rights and ADAPT led the grassroots campaign to ensure the US Supreme Court did not overturn our right to live in the community. Twenty-six states signed onto the amicus brief supporting Georgia. ADAPT could have little direct impact on how each of the nine justices would rule, but the grass-roots group could change the minds of the states that supported Georgia.

One by one ADAPT struck in the US states that had signed on in solidarity with Georgia’s appeal. By April, when the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the case, the number of supporting states was down to 11.  Although judges say they make decisions based on facts and issues of law, ADAPT and our allies had reduced the support for Georgia from over half of US states, to just a handful. The ADAPT campaign was truly a tremendous grass-roots success.

On March 9, 1999 Governor Gary Locke and the Attorney General of Washington wrote a letter to explain why they had removed their state from the Georgia amicus brief:

"The Governor and I have each affirmed our strong support for better services and choices for persons with disabilities.  We do not want our signature on this amicus brief to call that commitment into doubt and create unnecessary fear and anxiety."

On June 22, 1999 the court released its decision in Olmstead. The ruling upheld the ADA “integration mandate” and called inappropriate institutionalization discrimination. ADAPT has called it our community’s “Brown v Board,” because it requires integration.

"Today's decision is a critical step in changing how and where people with disabilities receive services necessary for everyday life," said Mike Auberger, a national organizer with ADAPT, back on the day the Olmstead decision was announced.  "It tells states that segregated services will no longer be tolerated.  But our fight for REAL choice continues."

The fight for REAL choice has continued. The Attorney General who signed the letter removing the state of Washington from the Georgia amicus brief was Christine Gregoire. Now, thirteen years later: Governor Gregoire; the Governor who was the target of a grassroots campaign to protect the gains of Olmstead by not appealing MR v Dreyfus.

One very powerful aspect of ADAPT that is often hard to see is our consistency. People looking for immediate results and instant gratification may not understand the importance of the ADAPT action opposing Tommy Olmstead’s case against two women in Georgia. But the consistency of ADAPT’s fight for almost 30 years has amplified the power of our community. FREE OUR PEOPLE!