Brennan Center for Justice

Last updated
Brennan Center for Justice
Brennan Center for Justice logo.svg
Established1995;29 years ago (1995)
President Michael Waldman
Chair Patricia Bauman and Robert A. Atkins
Budget$21,201,609 (2017) [1]
Location
New York, New York; Washington, D.C.
Website www.brennancenter.org OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (NYU Law) is a liberal [2] [3] [4] or progressive [5] nonprofit law and public policy institute. The organization is named after Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. The Brennan Center advocates for public policy positions including raising the minimum wage, opposing voter ID laws, and calling for public funding of elections. [6] [7] The organization opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC , which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit organizations. [8] [9]

Contents

The Brennan Center's stated mission is to "work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all." [10] Its president is Michael Waldman, former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton.

History and mission

The Brennan Center for Justice was founded in 1995 by the family and former law clerks of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., whom The Washington Post called "the progressive voice of the modern court". [11] Justice Brennan's idea of a living constitution figures largely into the center's work. [12] The Brennan Center started with an initial grant by the Carnegie Corporation of New York of $25,000 in 1996. The Carnegie Corporation in years since has donated over $3,650,000. [13] During the selection process of what school to center operations from, the Brennan Center selected NYU Law out of a choice of three schools, with the other two being Harvard University and Georgetown University. [13]

The Brennan Center is part think tank, part public interest law firm, and part advocacy group. The organization is involved in issues such as opposing voter ID laws that it believes unduly restrict voter registration, and other barriers to registration and voting, and advocates for redistricting reform and campaign finance reform. [14] [15]

Activities

The Brennan Center's work is divided into three programs—Democracy, Justice, and Liberty & National Security. [16] Past programs focused on criminal justice, poverty, and economic justice. [17] The organization has focus on issues both at the national level in the United States but also at the state and local levels of government. [13]

The Brennan Center opposes mass incarceration and produces research on causes of violent crime in the United States. [18] [19] [20] The Brennan Center has represented several detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and also U.S. citizens or legal residents held as unlawful enemy combatants. [21] Attorneys from the Brennan Center challenged a U.S. President's authority to declare a prisoner to be an unlawful enemy combatant in the war on terror. They have also challenged the U.S. Congress's power to deny habeas corpus to such prisoners. [22]

The Brennan Center assisted in drafting and enacting the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The law banned soft money contributions to political campaigns. The organization helped Senator Dick Durbin write the Fair Elections Now Act. [23]

The Brennan Center advocated for the passage in 2010 of New York's law ending prison-based gerrymandering, and was part of a coalition of organizations that sought to defend that law from a court challenge. [24] The Brennan Center advocates for the restoration of felon voting rights. [25]

The Brennan Center represented plaintiffs Margarita López Torres, other unsuccessful judicial candidates, and Common Cause, in a lawsuit that challenged the way New York state trial judge candidates gain access to the ballot. They prevailed in the U.S. District Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. In 2007, attorneys from the Brennan Center argued N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres before the United States Supreme Court. In 2008, the court ruled for the state. [26]

In 2015, the Brennan Center submitted an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, urging the state not to overturn John Doe law, which allows the state to conduct criminal investigations in secret. [27] [28] [29]

The Brennan Center has been tracking states' legislation on voter ID laws and other barriers to voter registration and voting to determine whether there is undue burden carried by certain communities. Numerous lawsuits have been brought against states in such cases. By August 1, 2016, rulings in five cases: Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, overturned certain voter ID and other provisions, requiring states to make alternatives acceptable for the November 2016 election cycle. [30] [31] [32] The Brennan Center research has also indicated that instances of voter fraud by citizens and non-citizens are very rare. [33] In 2021, the Brennan Center represented Ohio citizens groups in their efforts to stop gerrymandering and, after winning judgments in the state Supreme Court did not improve district maps, the Center supported a 2024 ballot initiative. [34]

In 2023, the Brennan Center surveyed election administrators, finding many plan on retiring before the 2024 presidential election. [35]

The Brennan Center filed a friend of the court briefing in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper. In oral arguments on December 7, 2022, the Brennan Center urged the United States Supreme Court to allow the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the state legislature’s congressional map for violating the North Carolina Constitution. [36]

The Brennan Center for Justice is a partner organization of VoteRiders. [37] In 2024, the Brennan Center, VoteRiders, and other organizations released research on proof of citizenship in the U.S., finding that more than 21 million Americans would not be able to quickly locate a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers as proof of citizenship within 24 hours. [38] [39] [40] The research also concluded that nearly four million American citizens (two percent of U.S. citizens) lack access to any form of proof in citizenship. [41] [42] [43] Later in 2024, the Center also released a report focused on state-by-state redesigns of election rules in the aftermath of the 2020 election. [44]

Funding

As of the Brennan Center's 2021 annual report, the organization has received funding from: [45]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of the United States</span>

In the United States, politics functions within a framework of a constitutional federal republic. The three distinct branches share powers: the U.S. Congress which forms the legislative branch, a bicameral legislative body comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; the executive branch, which is headed by the president of the United States, who serves as the country's head of state and government; and the judicial branch, composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and which exercises judicial power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter suppression</span> Strategy designed to restrict specific groups of people from voting

Voter suppression are tactics used to discourage or prevent specific groups of people from voting or registering to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization, activating otherwise inactive voters, or registering new supporters. Voter suppression, instead, attempts to gain an advantage by reducing the turnout of certain voters. Suppression is an anti-democratic tactic associated with authoritarianism.

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina's 1st congressional district</span> U.S. House district for South Carolina

South Carolina's 1st congressional district is a coastal congressional district in South Carolina, represented by Republican Nancy Mace since January 3, 2021. She succeeded Democrat Joe Cunningham, having defeated him in the 2020 election. Cunningham was the first Democrat to represent the district since the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter registration in the United States</span> Requirement for most elections in the United States of America

All U.S. states and territories, except North Dakota, require voter registration by eligible citizens before they can vote in federal, state and local elections. In North Dakota, cities in the state may register voters for city elections, and in other cases voters must provide identification and proof of entitlement to vote at the polling place before being permitted to vote. Voter registration takes place at the county level in many states or at the municipal level in several states. Many states set cutoff dates for registration or to update details, ranging from two to four weeks before an election, while 25 states and Washington, D.C. have same-day voter registration, which enables eligible citizens to register or update their registration on the same day they cast their vote. In states that permit early voting, and have voter registration, the prospective voter must be registered before casting a vote.

Electoral reform in the United States refers to the efforts of change for American elections and the electoral system used in the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter identification laws in the United States</span>

Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually vote in elections in the United States.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4, which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting.

VoteRiders is an American non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to ensure that all U.S. citizens over 18 years old are able to exercise their right to vote. One of its main focuses is assisting citizens who want to secure their voter ID, and VoteRiders collaborates with other organizations in these efforts.

Voter suppression in the United States consists of various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Voter suppression has historically been used for racial, economic, gender, age and disability discrimination. After the American Civil War, all African-American men were granted voting rights, but poll taxes or language tests were used to limit and suppress the ability to register or cast a ballot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 improved voting access. Since the beginning of voter suppression efforts, proponents of these laws have cited concerns over electoral integrity as a justification for various restrictions and requirements, while opponents argue that these constitute bad faith given the lack of voter fraud evidence in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">League of Women Voters of Florida</span> American nonpartisan civic organization

The League of Women Voters of Florida (LWVFL) is a civic organization in the state of Florida. The organization is nonpartisan; the League's Bylaws mandate that the organization will not support any political candidate or party. League promotes political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government, acts on selected governmental issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. League's members do advocate on policy issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">For the People Act</span> Election reform and anti-corruption bill in the 117th Congress

The Freedom to Vote Act, introduced as H.R. 1, is a bill in the United States Congress intended to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, ban partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black suffrage in the United States</span>

African Americans were fully enfranchised in practice throughout the United States by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Prior to the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, some Black people in the United States had the right to vote, but this right was often abridged or taken away. After 1870, Black people were theoretically equal before the law, but in the period between the end of Reconstruction era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 this was frequently infringed in practice.

The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other bodies with legislative power. In June 2023, in the case Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give state legislatures sole power over elections and rejected the ISL.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 Ohio Issue 1</span> Citizen-led Redistricting Commission

The 2024 Ohio redistricting commission initiative was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, Issue 1 on the ballot, that was defeated 53.8% to 46.2% in the November 2024 election. If passed, the amendment would have replaced the existing politician-led Ohio Redistricting Commission with a citizen-led 15-member Ohio Citizen Redistricting Commission, appointed by retired judges, to redraw congressional and legislative districts.

References

  1. ↑ "IRS Form 990 2017" (PDF). Internal Revenue Service. June 30, 2017. Retrieved October 12, 2018.
  2. ↑ Katz, Lee Michael (Summer 2008). "The Brennan Center for Justice: A Bipartisan Champion of Democracy Comes of Age" (PDF). Carnegie Results. Carnegie Corporation of New York. pp. 1–16. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-01-24. Retrieved July 29, 2022.
  3. ↑ Montopoli, Brian (October 3, 2011). "2012 election: Disenfranchised voters, hacked machines?". CBS News . Archived from the original on August 25, 2016. Retrieved May 10, 2019.
  4. ↑ Shelton, Shania (June 14, 2023). "At least 11 states have enacted restrictive voting laws this year, new report finds". CNN . Archived from the original on August 18, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  5. ↑ "Brennan Center for Justice". CREDO Donations. Archived from the original on March 29, 2019. Retrieved May 10, 2019.
  6. ↑ Lingeman, Richard (2008). The Nation Guide to the Nation . Vintage Books. p.  243. ISBN   9780307387288.
  7. ↑ Filipovic, Jill (April 5, 2014). "Time for public financing of elections". Al Jazeera America . Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  8. ↑ Barrett, Paul (January 14, 2015). "Five Ways the Supreme Court Transformed Campaign Finance". Bloomberg.com . Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  9. ↑ Rose Quandt, Katie (January 21, 2015). "How Is 'Citizens United' Ruining Democracy and How Can We Stop It?". Moyers & Company. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  10. ↑ "Our Mission". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  11. ↑ "Justice Brennan, Voice of Court's Social Revolution, Dies". Washington Post. July 25, 1997. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  12. ↑ "Brennan Center Follows Own Path," Courtside Legal Times, March 25, 1996
  13. 1 2 3 "The Brennan Center for Justice: A Bipartisan Champion of Democracy Comes of Age" (PDF). Summer 2008. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
  14. ↑ Von Spakovsky, Hans (October 13, 2011). "New Myths on Voter ID". National Review. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  15. ↑ Cohn, Nate (November 26, 2014). "Studies Back Up That Few Elections Are Swung by Voter ID Laws". New York Times. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  16. ↑ "Programs". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
  17. ↑ Schell, Scott (August 27, 2003). "The Brennan Center for Justice: Carrying on the Fight." Archived 2011-09-26 at the Wayback Machine NYC Pro Bono Center News. Retrieved 2011-05-17.
  18. ↑ Davis, Kristina (February 14, 2015). "Study: Incarceration not behind crime drop". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  19. ↑ Sneed, Tierney (February 12, 2015). "Mass Incarceration Didn't Lower Crime, But Can Congress Be Convinced?". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  20. ↑ "Crime and despair in Baltimore". The Economist. 29 June 2017. Retrieved 2017-08-01.
  21. ↑ Nazaryan, Alexander (January 23, 2015). "To Live and Die in Gitmo". Newsweek. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  22. ↑ "Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri". Brennan Center. February 28, 2009. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
  23. ↑ "Durbin, Larson Introduce Fair Elections Now Act, Durbin Announces Hearing on Campaign Finance Reform" (April 6, 2011). Press Release, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin.
  24. ↑ Lucas, David (May 19, 2011). "Civil Rights Organizations File Motion to Defend Law Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering", WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
  25. ↑ Brodey, Sam (April 14, 2015). "40,000 Maryland Ex-Cons May Soon Get Their Voting Rights Back". Mother Jones. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  26. ↑ Scalia, Antonin & al. (January 16, 2008). "New York State Board of Elections, petitioners, v, Margarita Lopez Torres et al" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-11-21. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
  27. ↑ Hoy, Seth (March 3, 2015). "BRIEF: Ethicists Urge Wisconsin Justices to Consider Recusal in Gov. Scott Walker Campaign Finance Case". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  28. ↑ Stein, Jason (March 20, 2015). "Prosecutor alerts justices to secrecy violation in John Doe". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  29. ↑ Gass, Henry (July 16, 2015). "Boost for Scott Walker as campaign finance probe ends". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  30. ↑ Rober Barnes (August 1, 2016). "Federal judge blocks N. Dakota's voter-ID law, calling it unfair to Native Americans". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-08-02.
  31. ↑ Ariane de Vogue, "Voting challenges head toward the Supreme Court: 4 cases to watch", CNN, 19 July 2016; accessed 30 July 2016
  32. ↑ "Voter ID Laws Take a Beating in U.S. Courts", New York Times, 30 July 2016, p. 1
  33. ↑ "The voter-fraud commission relies on some really dodgy studies". The Economist. 20 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-08-01.
  34. ↑ "Timeline of Ohio's Gerrymandered Maps: How Ohio Politicians Defied Court Orders to Manipulate Legislative Districts | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2024-08-25.
  35. ↑ "Massive turnover in local election officials likely before 2024, says new survey". NBC News. 25 April 2023. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  36. ↑ "Analysis | What you need to know about the big Supreme Court election case". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2023-01-05.
  37. ↑ "Partner Organizations • VoteRiders". VoteRiders. Retrieved 2022-09-20.
  38. ↑ Levine, Sam (2024-06-12). "Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  39. ↑ "New Voter ID Laws May Stop Millions From Participating in 2024…". Maryland Today. 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  40. ↑ "New Research Ahead of 2024 Confirms Voter ID Laws Impact Millions". Democracy Docket. 2024-02-14. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  41. ↑ Levine, Sam (2024-06-12). "Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  42. ↑ Wang, Hansi Lo (June 11, 2024). "1 in 10 eligible U.S. voters say they can't easily show proof of their citizenship". NPR.
  43. ↑ Jessica (2024-06-12). "Millions of U.S. voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship • VoteRiders". VoteRiders. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  44. ↑ Sneed, Tierney (2024-08-15). "New report details how voting landscape has shifted in key states since 2020 election | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-10.
  45. ↑ Atkins, Robert; Bauman, Patricia. "Democracy Can't Wait: Annual Report 2021" (PDF). Brennan Center for Justice. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-01-02. Retrieved 2023-01-02.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.