Meeting of the Us Commission on civil rights comes to order at 10 00 on august 18, 2017. A meeting takes place at Committee Headquarters at 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest, washington dc. I am chair catherine lhamon. With me, commissioner gail meriot, commissioner Peter Kirsanow, say your name, commissioner David Gladney. Are you present . Thank you. In trouble already. Commissioner michael yaki. Im here. The Court Reporter is present, director, are you present . Im present. Meeting comes to order. Motion to approve the agenda for this business meeting . Second . Perfect. I was going to ask for amendments. I have a few to start us off. I would like to remove discussion on vote on lb gt employment determination, some commissioners requested additional time to review the report. I think staff for finalizing the report that we place on the agenda for next months meeting. Second, i would like to add consideration for statement titled the Us Commission on civil rights condemns the administrations military ban on transgender individuals. Third, i would like to amend at a presentation dry California Advisory Committee member Rachel Sigmund who requested to speak to the commission to present her defense on that committees report. Any other proposed amendments . I would like to amend the agenda to add a statement that has been circulated through doj policy. Michael yaki. Two items. One, statement on reversal of the department of justice position on the national voting, and vra. The second is to add a vote on what i shared with the other commission. Debo adegbile. I would like to add a statement on charlottesville on behalf of the commission. Thank you. Any other proposed amendments . Lets vote to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed . Any objections . How the motion passes unanimously. We will discuss and vote on the discovery plan on recent date and location for fy 2018 statutory enforcement report on Voting Rights. Open the floor for amendments and discussion. Thank you. A discussion on the motion, i start by offering a few amendment circulated yesterday. My proposed amendments to the discovery plan adding language to specify the report should look at section 208 of the Voting Rights act which states, quote, voters requiring assistance because of blindness, disability or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voters choice. The discovery plan i propose the following three changeds. One, adding subsection e to number one and relettering subsequent sections. Subsection 1e would state participation by doj in claims under section 208 of the vra with one subsection identifying United States versus Southern District of texas, 2006, alleging the county failed to ensure voters who are disabled, blind or illiterate were allowed adding 2 b and section 208 before litigation and 3, adding to iiia, people with disabilities, before, in the 2016 president ial election in the first sentence. To the outline i propose the following. First, after the chapter 2 section heading titled, quote, examine trends in section 203, language minority litigation, examine trends in section 208, Disability Access litigation, 2006 vra reauthorization. Second, in subsection voter turnout and registration adding and persons with disabilities after limited english Language Proficiency in the first seconds in the first sub bullet. In the second sub bullet of the same subsection adding and 208 after section 2 and 203. In the chapter 3 section heading titled review of statement of interest objection letters, add claims under section 208 of the vra after the first two. Do i have a second for these amendments . Second. Any other amendments . I have two. My proposed amendments are to the outline. The first one is under chapter 2, under state actions after the shelby decision. It is state actions after the shelby decision, several bullets down talks about automatic Voter Registration and voting by mail. I would like to add voting registration, to make it clear we are also looking at changes to voting registration processes. There have been several states that made it more difficult to register and i suspect there might be problems. The second change is under the same section, just to add a bullet that talks about examples of impact to students of color for not accepting university issued id and closure of polling sites such as ams university and i am not trying to expand it to cover all of the issues around student voting which are not covered by this but simply the intersection where minority students are being targeted that would be covered. Any other proposed amendments, discussions . Madam chair . I would like to thank commissioners for flexibility with regard to the state of this briefing. I have some International Travel that will keep me away from the originally contemplated dates that we are focused on february 2nd so i think the commissioners for that. Any other discussions . We may be getting into trouble with a too ambitious, when we say it the put before the commission, a little bit more elaborate and detailed than this but on a smaller scale i would like in the future to get back to a more focused question than we have now and staff has done a good job with what they can do with this. Appreciate the caution and history of how we got here. Take a roll call vote. Debo adegbile . Gail meriot, David Gladney . Karen narasaki, michael yaki, and i vote yes. The motion passes unanimously. The dates and locations of our other briefings in fiscal year 2018. I move we hold the School Discipline briefing for december 8, 2017, in washington dc and hate crimes briefing on may 11, 2008, team in washington dc. Is there a second . Thank you. Discussion . Hearing none, take a roll call vote. [rollcall vote] the motion passes unanimously. Consider amended business items beginning with the statement on charlottesville. I will turn it over to Debo Adegbile so we know what we are building on. Thank you. Us commission on civil rights taking on charlottesville. Us commission on civil rights expresses its profound dismay over the violence and deadly a events in Charlottesville Virginia between august 11th, and august 13, 2017, motivated by racial and religious intolerance. We join the nation in mourning the death of 32yearold Heather Heyer who was the victim of domestic terrorism motivated by a white supremacist ideology. She lives now in our National Memory as a martyr for racial and religious justice. We also mourn the death of state trooper hj cullen, 48, and burkey bates, a day short of his 41st birthday who died in a tragic Helicopter Crash after they were dispatched to monitor the violence in charlottesville. As americans we are committed to the right to assemble peaceably but we condemn racial, ethnic and religious hatred, incitement and violence. The events in charlottesville stand as another tragic and painful reminder that an ideology of hateful and religious intolerance can lead in an instant to irretrievable acts in death and suffering. As a nation we marched through legally sanctioned slavery, secession, civil war, reconstruction, kkk terror, internment of japaneseamerican citizens, jim crow and the Civil Rights Era in pursuit of equality. Progress has come through courage of individuals, not all of whom are remembered as they should be. You stand for the rule of law, People Protection and human dignity. We urge the United States department of justice, the federal bureau of investigation and appropriate virginia Law Enforcement officials to bring any and all people responsible for her killing to justice and we urge authorities to use all available resources to investigate other apparent crimes, including any federal or state paid crimes committed in charlottesville last weekend. The 60th anniversary year of the United States civil rights commission, we all must grapple with the violence in charlottesville is a bracing reminder the nations work to ensure equality is urgent and ongoing. White supremacy and religious intolerance dishonor National Commitments we have forged over time. That is, they demean america and americans and violence in the name of these ideologies must be met swiftly and forcefully with condemnation and unwavering and unified response. Chair Catherine Lehman said every american deserves to live confident in the expectation that his and her equal dignity will be respected and receive protection from government agencies. Last weeks violence driven by racial animus degrades our nation and merits swift, aggressive and comprehensive federal response. In america, we live by the rule of law. The law must prevail in charlottesville as in any city or town faced with similar violence. Sadly, we know that no law will bring back the fallen. But we live by symbols and Heather Heyer is a painful but an opening symbol that our nation must not depart from the fight for equality and human dignity. In the words of her neighbor, she lived her life like a bat and it was one of justice. On behalf of the commission, we urge the nation to really dedicate itself to walk that path. Thank you, Debo Adegbile. I will open to questions. We didnt have a motion. Having discussion before the motion. We have to have a motion first. I move we do but i have an amendment so i might not be the right person. I move we adopt a statement. Second. Discussion . Amendment. I move that we add the second paragraph at the very end the following sentence. Though we support peaceful protest and note that most of the counterdemonstrators were peaceful we condemn violence by anyone including violence by socalled antifa demonstrators, period. They dont call themselves that but antifascist demonstrators have been called that. Could you read the statement again . This is a sentence that would go at the end of the second paragraph. Though we support peaceful protests and note that most of the counterdemonstrators were peaceful, we condemn violence by anyone, including violence by socalled antifa demonstrators, period. Was this contemplated to make more clear what the statement already captures by suggesting the rule of law be applied . I think the statement does not make it clear there were protesters who were not among the nazis or kkk which we all condemn but were coming at it from the opposite direction and were also violent. Michael yaki. I certainly understand the motivation of the amendments, that violence in right wing groups should not justify violence, expressing the statement as a whole, i find it necessary and i will support the statement but i do not find it sufficient. If we were to put anything else in this statement, it should be a strong statement about the lack of leadership and courage and moral authority of the president of the United States in dealing with this situation. There is no there cannot be a situation where the president of the United States says that there are very fine people on both sides. There are no very fine people who are not sees, in the vanguard movement, people who train every day to provoke a race war and try to do just that in charlottesville. There cannot be a place for a president to do anything other than not just condemn what happens, a full force of the Office President and executive branch not just to prosecute those who became violent because violence is there ideology but to dig them out, root and branch, and other attorney generals before in our history, this is really where statements could be on method but i would prefer to have a unanimous statement from the commission. I do not support that or commissioner gail meriots amendment to this. If that is requiring unanimity i wont pay it because we know why this happened. We know what happened in charlottesville was a deliberate provocation, these people came armed and ready to do violence and battle because that is part of who they are. There are no very fine nazis. There are only people who are dedicated to relitigate a moral cause over 70 years ago by blood of the treasurer of this country and other countries throughout the world. I will support the statement as is. I will not support any changes to it but we as the commission should take to task this president who failed abysmally in providing clear direction and leadership and moral center for this nation in a situation where hate became the motivator. Make no mistake this is not racial intolerance, this is an ideology of hatred, hatred towards people of color, lgbts, the jewish community, this was not religious intolerance, these are people who chanted slogans aimed at members of the jewish faith, at members of the lgbt community. This is a good statement. I commend my fellow commissioner for putting it together but i got to say we could have gone so much further and given the fact we have a bar that has been set by people like senator bob corker and Mitch Mcconnell the past Strong Language condemning and questioning the leadership of this president i wish we could do the same. Commissioner gail meriot, i understand the statement and i understand a little about rioting. I am at a loss to understand why the first sentence in that paragraph doesnt generally cover your concern. It says as americans we are committed to the right to assemble peaceably but we condemn racial, ethnic and religious hatred, incitement and violence. That is a general statement but i dont see why that doesnt cover your concern . We all right differently. I wouldnt write it the same way just as you wouldnt. Consider again please why that first statement wouldnt cover it . Because read in context the statement as written makes it very clear we are condemning one side. Although i dont think it is appropriate to condemn both sides because there were lots of demonstrators, counterdemonstrators there who were simply making the point they should make, since i wont stand for nazis, kkk members and their views, there were some people on that side who were in fact violent. That is important to point out. The statement does not do so. I would oppose the amended language. First of all, i feel it is covered in the fourth paragraph where it says we urge authorities to use our resources to investigate other apparent crimes including federal, state, hate crimes that were committed. Second of all i feel very strongly there is a lack of moral equivalency. I have a problem because i feel that somehow is excusing the people who caused the violence to begin with. I lack evidence that there were significant numbers of counterdemonstrators who were in fact as violent as those who were inciting the violence to begin with. This is an important moment for the nation and for this commission. I welcome the careful thought and thinking of all of the commissioners, many of whom have given input into this statement that we are trying to negotiate to assure that for the full extent possible speak with a unified voice at a time when it seems circumstances in the country could reasonably have the expectation the United States commission on civil rights to the fullest extent possible would speak with one clarion voice. I think this statement does not condone violence of any kind and that is apparent from the language we have negotiated and that is on the page, i share karen narasakis concern that we be careful not to create false equivalency. It is one thing not to condone violence, the best and highest traditions of the fight for civil rights in this country have been a disciplined use of nonviolence in the face of extraordinary hate and violence and i think the marchers went to charlottesville in the context of that history. There are some circumstances where protests result in violence but i dont read anything in this statement as written to condone that violence and i think it is adequate to express the needs and on that basis i will not support the amendment. I also want to be clear, i was raised in the nonviolent civil rights tradition and strongly oppose violence and believe in nonviolent civil rights protests where necessary. I think the statement is a powerful statement of opposition to violence, opposition to racist ideology and return to the nations darkest past. I too oppose any language that would water down the sentiment that is extant in the statement is crafted and captures opposition to violence of all types. I would like to say is not the intention of this language to water down the sentiment in the statement as a whole. It very much is the intent of the proposed amendment, my intent, to make it clear that there was indeed violence by people against the nazis and kkk. Both need to be condemned. Commissioner michael yaki. I am sitting here in disbelief that this last statement, that people who used a car to mow down Peaceful Protesters should find any comfort in equivalency from the Us Commission on civil rights with regard to their actions by casting blame on people, groups and organizations that were out there peacefully protesting, whether some got carried away or not. Their intent and motivation and ideology is not motivated by hatred, not motivated by violence and it does terrible injustice to the memory of heather and her family for us to consider this amendment. I would hope commissioner gail meriot and commissioner Peter Kirsanow support the statement as drafted. I think it is a good statement. If their support for this has conditions, that amendment, then i will have no hesitation in starting to offer amendments of my own. We have a packed agenda so im going to move us and note commissioner Peter Kirsanow is speculating on what his position is. Motion as amended is to vote on the statement with the sentence gail meriot has opposed which i call for a roll call vote on that motion. How do you vote . [rollcall vote] New York Times reporter Cheryl Stover reporting from charlottesville says i saw club wielding beatings of white nationalists being let out of the park. How do you vote, Peter Kirsanow . Yes. Yes. Karen narasaki. I vote no is given the fact we had the discussion leslie whether one should trust everything is written again i apologize, i put it the wrong way. You voted no. I thought we were voting on the statement. I apologize. Michael yaki. No. I vote no. Motion fails. We want to move to reconsider the statement . The statement is proposed. Delay pending motion, the way roberts rules work. You dont have to remove it. We should proceed to the vote. How do you vote . I vote yes. Peter kirsanow. Yes. David gladney. Yes. Karen narasaki. Yes. Michael yaki. Yes. I vote yes. The motion passes unanimously. Civil Asset Forfeiture. What we are voting on, titled Us Commission on civil rights, and forfeiture policy and civil rights strongly disagrees with the department of justice recent decision to expand federal participation in the forfeiture. Civil Asset Forfeiture defined as taking of property by Law Enforcement without criminal conviction sharply curtailed by the department in 2015. Efforts to limit the practice have bipartisan support as Justice Clarence thomas recently noted. The system where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain mens for their own use has led to egregious and well chronicled abuses. Congressman jim conyers stated it has increasingly become apparent that the procedures in federal law governing civil forfeiture are inadequate and unfair. With respect to concerns about access to justice, civil Asset Forfeiture cases make a mockery of the constitution. Recent analysis of nevada forfeiture shows most seizures of property in that state last year where assets were less than 1000, they were concentrated in areas where most residents or people of color and poverty was high. The high cost of challenge, means there is no procedure of such assets. And 2 million in cash and property in 2016. As in other states, keeping a portion of the money that creates an inherent conflict of interest. Public trust is dangerously undermined when police are perceived to be acting primarily in their own financial interests rather than interests of public safety. The deferment of justice decision to expand federal participation in Asset Forfeitures means conflict of interest will be more widespread. Although the department has included new notices of procedures and promised monitoring in the new policy directives scaling up rather than scaling back on this practice means more innocent americans will lose their property. Current forfeiture laws put lawabiding citizens at risk for unwarranted seizures and the proposal to expand programs like that will make the problem worse. The commission has investigated similar conflicts of interest raising serious civil rights and access to justice concerns. In our investigation of municipal fines and fees the results of which the commission plans to report in 2017 the commission examines conflicts of interest at the municipal level where court seek first to collect money rather than administer justice. Testimony the commission received indicates of alexis forfeiture create similar problems leading to innocent persons losing their property or recovering it only after long legal struggles and undermining public trust in government. Two of the commissions advisory committees in michigan and tennessee have taken the topic for review because of civil rights concerns. Forfeiture has repeatedly been shown to have disproportionate outcomes with greater effect on people of color. As Justice Thomas noted forfeiture operation specifically target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Every american should have equal access to justice in this country. That the part of justice should be insuring that, not engaging in practices to put this in question. The Commission Urges that the promise of justice to heed the many concerns raised about civil assets forfeiture, or better justice. We will now discuss the statement. Any discussion . I have a friendly amendment to change reference to jim conyers to john conyers. I support the amendment and suspect the congressman would as well. Thank you. Motion to approve the statement regarding civil Asset Forfeiture, second . How do you vote . Yes. Commissioner gail meriot. Commissioner Peter Kirsanow. Commissioner David Gladney. Commissioner karen narasaki. Yes. Commissioner michael yaki. Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. The same disability as commissioner David Gladney. I would like to revise my vote. I thought you were ruining your street credibility. One abstention, all others in favor. I am sorry. Nevermind. Statement on transgender military band. I will read the statement, the title is the Us Commission on civil rights condemns the announced military ban on transgender individuals, the Us Commission on civil rights strongly urges the president to reconsider his position as expressed on july 26, 2017, the, quote, the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the us military. The Commission Urges the administration to recommit civil rights for all persons in our country. Thousands of transgender troops currently serve in the us military and thousands more have served and given their lives throughout our history. These military men and women honor our country and defend it with their service. As a group of retired military officers pointed out the ban if implemented would cause significant disruption, deprive the military of missioncritical talent and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie as well as nontransgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying. Ironically, 69 years previously on the very same day in 1948, president Harry S Truman issued an executive order to desegregate the us military. President truman zen correctly recognized the nations military strength and advocacy depends on equal treatment of its troops. He saw integration notwithstanding predictable resistance to the change was not only possible but essential. Living up to the american equal treatment of all persons. 7 decades later, egregiously failed to learn from our past. The president s mere announcement of a ban on Transgender Military Service harms allamericans by sending a message that fosters and encourages prejudice, inconsistent with our Core National values. If implement the ban would further harm americans and we can our defense by enshrining unequal treatment of americans based on rank stereotypes. Animus has no place in any aspect of american life. Allamericans deserve our governments respect and protection, not affirmative harm from the government itself. The Us Commission on civil rights called on the United States to satisfy civil rights protections that are the responsibility and obligation of the federal government. We will now discuss the statement. Discussion . Hearing none, the motion to approve the statement regarding military ban on transgender individuals. So moved. Second . How do you vote . I have a question. Do we know for certain whether or not there is an order on this or was it just the president s attempt to distract people during the Health Care Debate by tweeting it out there without informing anyone in the joint chiefs or any head of the Armed Services . What we know is the president made the statement through a tweet and that statement, the statement, our statement itself determines the statement was announced and the way the announcement itself is harmful and the way it is implemented, the ban would be harmful. Just wondering. Just that people change policy by tweets, following the chain of command or unanimous opinion of members of the military. I was just wondering, thanks. We will proceed with the vote. I missed the discussion part. I would say a tweet is not a policy statement. I am going to vote no. No. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner na rasaki. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner yaki. I agree with commissioner heriot but im going to vote yes. Chair lhamon vice chair goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes. Two commissioners voted no. All others were in favor. Well consider the national Voting Rights act. Thank you madam chair. This is raising a concern about a shift by the department of justice over policy thats been in place for 20 years through both democratic and Republican Administration and through several cases. It reads Us Commission on civil rights raises concern about reversal of the department of justice position and keep Voting Rights case took the Us Commission on civil rights express concern with the department of justice recentust change of position in houston versus a Philip Randolph institute,ue to monitor the action of the administration as part of its previously announced twoyear assessment of federal civil Rights Enforcement which will conclude in fiscal year 2019. Chair kathryn e. Lhamon states the right to vote is fundamental in our american democracy. The commission will continue to uphold its 60year mandate to protect that right and remains vigilant in ensuring the department of justice fulfills its own mandate of enforcing federal civil rights statutes. Chair lhamon thank you. Now open for discussion on that statement. Is there a second . Theres been no motion yet. Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the statement. I so move. Is there a second . Second. Chair lhamon commissioner adegbile, how do you vote . Aye. Chair lhamon i called for discussion and heard none. Discussions are supposed to go after the motion. The motion is what makes it possible to conduct the discussion. Thats what roberts rules of order say. Chair lhamon do you have discussion youd like to begin . Yes, two things. First, im going to oppose chair lhamon i think your microphone may not be on. Here we go. Im going to oppose this for two reasons. First is, it states that although though facts or case law have changed, and that is inaccurate, when litigation first began, ohios board of elections would monitor the voting rolls, and if there was an inactivity in the voter rolls for two years, a post card would be sent out asking for confirmation of the persons residency status, and that post card would not inform the person of the consequences of failure to respond or what that person can do in terms of becoming eligible to vote in whatever new jurisdiction that person was in. After litigation has begun, the board of elections changed that to now inform the voters of the consequences of what would happen. That is if they would not vote or register, they would be purged from the rolls four years thereafter, so that was changed. They still do not tell the voter what they can do in terms of conforming with the eligibility requirements in a new jurisdiction, but then that begs the question, how can one state tell a voter how to conform to the requirements of another state . So theres been a change. The second one is that maintaining accurate voter rolls is, in fact, essential. Any vote that shouldnt be had cancels out a vote that legitimately should be had, and this is an effort to maintain the integrity of the voting roll in terms of whos eligible to vote in a given jurisdiction. There have been a number of studies including the Election Integrity project that shows that there are 3. 5 million more people on the voting rolls than there are live adults in the United States. San diego county by itself you live there, dont you . Has over 800,000 more people on its rolls than are live adts. Over 800,000 more people than are live adults. We all remember 538 votes in florida decided the election and i think it was 300 votes out of 208 million cast. 162 votes out of the millions cast, so each vote is important. Mainly because of the inaccuracy i will focus on that. The change you note, commissioner was actually acknowledged by the federal courts who noted as i do that its not actually the issue at hand. What the notice says is actually irrelevant to the policy and the policy is focused on whether its a sufficient to remove the people otherwise eligible simply by mailing anything to them and this is the challenge because the reason why the department has taken this position and objected to it when georgia tried to do in 1994 is because there is a concern particularly for minority communities who have poor service that it would be a problem for them. Immigrant families also tend to live in multi family households and nontraditional and mail delivery is ineffective and i would think you would be concerned the fact that 7500 people who would have been struck showed up to vote and would have been told you cant votes would be more of a concern than the fact that there are dead people on the roles who clearly arent trying to votes. The fact there are dead people on the roles who may be registered in multiple jurisdictions with hundreds of thousands of people are registered in multiple jurisdictions and evidence where people have admitted they voted in multiple jurisdictions in addition to which the pastor of this case was at the injunctive stage in other words not the merit stage, this change could have a positive impact on the nature of this litigation and for that reason i say its inaccurate and would be at best premature. Commissioner, i agree that its important to try to keep the roles clean, but there is not evidence there is widespread voting by people who are double registered and has been widely reported although we have established one cannot necessarily trust the press, even members of the president s family are double registered and i dont think anyone is accusing them of trying to vote twice. Thats why in our recent report on section seven, we supported the Voter Registration and Data Management technology because that will be a better way and the department of justice has been clear on how states can make better they can better maintain their role. The real criminal is the fact that states are underfunding Voter Administration and underfunding the ability to upgrade their system. That is the real problem here. They should not do it in a way that causes people who are otherwise eligible to vote who then can vote when they show up. Regardless of what whether not the familys registration is double registered it is a problem, when there has been exploited with individuals and studies showing people do vote in multiple jurisdictions and one of those votes is unlawful and one vote cancels out the vote of someone else, so that is significant. In this case its not as if there was [inaudible] the manner in which this happens is a prepaid postcards sent to individuals after two years of voting in activity saying please confirm you are a resident of this state or words to that effect and then there are mechanisms by which the person can in fact satisfy the request, one by the return of the prepaid coast postcard within the next four years or voting in the next four years or registering to vote in the next four years. Nonetheless, what happens in this case is that there was a change in the fact and i would say its premature to make a judgment on that until the Supreme Court weighs in. Commissioner, you must lead a charmed life if you have never had mail go missing in your life i know i have had several locations where the mail the post office has simply not delivered. In addition, there are stories of real people here again, i dont know what you call massive courage, but having that many people, 7500 eligible voters show up who would have otherwise been perverted is a problem. So, i find it very troubling the concern is more about dead people that about live people trying to votes. Further discussion . I just want to note that the question of the 538 people in florida could also be mitigated by the fact that florida not purged thousands of people who actually were registered to vote and were mistakenly struck off the role, so it goes both ways, commissioner. Calling the vote. [roll vote] [roll call vote] the motion passes. We are four minutes before our scheduled speakers at 11 00 a. M. , so we will recess until 11 00 a. M. And return to hear from our speakers. We are back on track for our presentation. Returned to our historical presentation perspective on 52 years of the Voting Rights