home > resources > archive ACLU of Utah Activist Email Newsletter: March 2004 In this issue: In Defense of Civil Liberties - 2004 Utah Legislative Report Utah - Leading the MATRIX Pack SLC Event: Free Film - "Persons of Interest" Action: Urge Congress to End Racial Profiling Action: Stop Congress from Limiting Free Speech In Defense of Civil Liberties - 2004 Utah Legislative Report Once again the 2004 General Session of the Utah Legislature proved to be an extremely frustrating experience for defenders of civil liberties. During the session the ACLU of Utah testified before committee hearings on four occasions and submitted six letters outlining our position on a number of critical bills. We also sent letters to Governor Olene Walker requesting her to veto three bills. The following is a brief synopsis of our report on important legislation in the 2004 session that raise serious civil liberties issues in Utah. Click here for the complete report. Marriage The Utah legislature passed a proposal to amend our state constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples. Apparently in an effort to drive the discrimination home, the legislature also passed a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and refusing to recognize marriages or similar unions sanctioned in other states. Marriage Recognition Policy - SB 24: passed Although Utah already had a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman (such laws are commonly called Defense of Marriage Acts, or DOMA’s), the legislature passed Senate Bill 24 restating that Utahs policy is to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. Because marriage was already defined as between a man and a woman, the actual intent of this bill seems to be to refuse to recognize marriages or other unions between same-sex couples that are legal in other states. The bill states that Utah will refuse to recognize, enforce, or give any legal effect to any legal status, rights, benefits, or duties that are substantially equivalent to those provided under Utah law to a man and a woman because they are married. The ACLU of Utah submitted letters to the committee and to both houses, arguing that the bill is unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair. Staff attorney Margaret Plane also testified before the committee that the bill is constitutionally deficient because it denies gay and lesbian couples equal protection of the law, which is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that discrimination for its own sake is inherently improper. Yet, this bill discriminates against same-sex couples based solely on the sex of the couples. SB 24 passed, despite these constitutional problems. Reproductive Freedom The assault on women’s reproductive freedom continued during the 2004 legislative session. Two bills that work to limit access to abortion were passed during the session. Prohibition of Public Funding for Abortion SB 68: passed SB 68 prohibits the use of public funds for abortion services, except in limited situations. The ACLU of Utah submitted letters to the committee and both houses urging legislators to vote against the bill because the exceptions are more restrictive than those permitted under federal Medicaid regulations. We also opposed SB 68 because its fiscal ramifications are unclear, and may be widespread as the bill prohibits the use of direct or indirect public funds. Staff attorney Margaret Plane testified about these concerns. Partial Birth Abortion Amendments - SB 69: passed The bill alters Utah’s already existing ban on so-called partial birth abortions. While we would prefer laws that work to protect access to safe abortions, we think it unfortunate that the legislature amended Utahs existing law, which has been cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice OConnor as a model method wherein states can address this issue without violating the constitution. The ACLU of Utah implored legislators to vote against SB 69 in letters submitted to the committee and to both houses. The letters argued that the bill was constitutionally flawed because it failed to include an exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman and because it was written too broadly. Protection of Private Lawfully Obtained Property - SB 175: passed The bill is a step backward from some of the reforms begun by the Utah Uniform Forfeiture Procedures Act passed by 69% of Utah’s voters in 2000. This bill removes the provision allowing legal forfeiture of assets only if a person is found guilty. While it does give the asset owner some avenues for compensation upon acquittal, it allows the property to be forfeited, returning to owners only a portion of the proceeds instead of their original property. This allows police the possibility of profiting from seized property, giving them a financial incentive to reduce or eliminate criminal charges in exchange for the accused not contesting the forfeiture of seized property. Click here for more of the 2004 Legislative Report. Utah - Leading the MATRIX Pack Documents obtained by the ACLU show Utah had an important role in MATRIX The MATRIX (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange) system is a federally funded database that would combine over 20 billion records on individuals from government and private sources. On November 18, 2003, the ACLU of Utah sent a formal request pursuant to the Utah Government Records and Management Act (GRAMA), to allow inspection of the public records held by the Utah Department of Public Safety (UDPS) regarding MATRIX. The documents released to the ACLU, in February 2004, clearly show that the MATRIX program, created by Boca Raton, Fla.- based Seisint Inc., includes much more than public records available to anyone on the Internet and is indeed a data-mining program that makes predictions about crime or terrorism. The documents also show that Utah was more then just a willing partner, it was a driving force behind the project. Read the analysis of the GRAMA documents on our web page. MATRIX News Update: 03/19/04 The ACLU of Utah sent a letter to the MATRIX oversight committee appointed by Governor Walker requesting that it recommend Utah’s withdrawal from the MATRIX program. We also included draft legislation which would impose strict guidelines and enable public oversight of MATRIX if the state continued to participate in the data base. 03/25/04 The oversight committee made a formal recommendation to the Governor that Utah should withdraw from complete participation in the MATRIX program. SLC Event: Free Film - "Persons of Interest" The Salt Lake City Film Center and the ACLU of Utah present a free screening of an important film "Persons of Interest" Monday, April 12, 7pm. Tower Theater, 876 East 900 South, Salt Lake City Followed by a panel discussion with: Tobias Perse, Co - Director of "Persons of Interest" Iqbal Hossain, Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake Dani Eyer, Director, ACLU of Utah A special reception will be held from 5:50 to 7pm at THIN AIR DESIGN, 926 South 900 East, before the screening at the Tower Theater. Print out or see a flyer "Persons of Interest" is a uniquely compelling film that gives voice to the human cost of the U.S. government’s anti-terrorism campaign. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, more than 5,000 Arab or Muslim immigrants were taken into custody by the U.S. Justice Department and held indefinitely on the grounds of national security. Detainees were subject to arbitrary arrest, secret detention, solitary confinement and deportation. Most were held on minor immigration charges and were frequently denied legal representation and communication with their families. The Justice Department has ensured the invisibility of these cases, by refusing to disclose the names and total number of people detained. Persons of Interest consists of a series of intimate encounters with 12 detainees and family members, in a bare room that functions variously as interrogation room, prison cell and home. In these encounters, detainees share their stories, show photographs, read letters written in jail, re-enact their prison experience -- even sing. A film guaranteed to raise the righteous indignation of anyone with a favorable opinion of liberty, freedom or the Constitution.- John Anderson, Newsday, January 22, 2004 No documentary was more timely or disturbing than "Persons of Interest . . . The film never raises its voice to propagandize. It doesn”t need to.- David Ansen, Newsweek online, January 23, 2004 A chilling look at national policy gone awry. . . "Persons of Interest" does a great service in offering new information at a time when open discussion is more important than ever.- James Greenberg, The Hollywood Reporter, Jan 31, 2004 Action: Urge Congress to End Racial Profiling Many Americans know about racial profiling - the practice of using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion as the primary factor in deciding who to subject to law enforcement investigations. In fact, hundreds of thousands of minorities know about it from personal experience as they have suffered the humiliation of being stopped by police while driving, flying, or even walking for no other reason than their color, religion, or ethnicity. Racial profiling is an ineffective law enforcement practice steeped in racial stereotypes and erroneous assumptions about the propensity of African-American, Latino, Asian, Native American or Arab people to commit particular types of crimes. Although the Department of Justice recently issued guidelines on the use of race in law enforcement, its directive had a huge "national security" exception and lacked any enforcement mechanism. Federal legislation is needed eliminate racial profiling in America. Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have introduced the "End Racial Profiling Act." The bill defines racial profiling, makes it illegal and requires data collection on all law enforcement encounters. It also provides individuals harmed by racial profiling with the power to stop law enforcement agencies from continuing to profile based on race, religion or national origin. Find out how you can support the "End Racial Profiling Act." Action: Stop Congress from Limiting Free Speech Despite the uproar around the federal marriage amendment, there is another proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution - one that would change the First Amendment for the first time ever. The proposed amendment would ban the desecration of the American flag, and in doing so desecrate what the flag represents, and what millions of Americans have died to defend. As Senator John Glenn has said, those "who died following that banner, did not give up their lives for a red, white and blue piece of cloth. It would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental freedoms themselves." Take Action! Urge your Senators to oppose the Flag Desecration Amendment! Click here to get more information and to take action. Return to top of page

ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850