(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)

The Supreme Court is meeting today to decide whether to review an ACLU challenge to the Bush administration’s authority to indefinitely imprison a U.S. citizen or a legal resident of the United States without charge or trial based simply on the president’s assertion that the detainee is an “enemy combatant.”

The case was filed on behalf of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a U.S. resident who was first arrested in December 2001 at his home in Peoria, Illinois, where he was living with his wife and children. His criminal case was set to go to trial in July 2003, until President Bush took the extraordinary step of designating al-Marri an “enemy combatant.” Al-Marri was then transferred to a military brig in South Carolina where he was subjected to torture and other degrading treatment.

Al-Marri is now the only person detained as an “enemy combatant” in the mainland United States.

Today, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by the ACLU National Security Project’s Jonathan Hafetz (who is al-Marri’s attorney). Jonathan describes the case and what is at stake in this case:

The law in question — a 2001 authorization to use military force in Afghanistan — has been twisted beyond recognition. It now allows the military to seize U.S. citizens as well as legal residents like Marri and hold them forever in a state of legal limbo.

Among our legal system’s most fundamental principles are the right to a jury trial and the presumption that someone is innocent until proved guilty. Like executive branch decisions approving torture, Marri’s detention is a radical departure from America’s deepest values, a moment when our country lost its bearings.

We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will take this case and ensure that people in this country cannot be removed from their homes and imprisoned indefinitely — without charge or trial — just because the president says so. If they don’t, this case could represent the tragic, but appropriate final chapter of the Bush administration’s failed national security policies.

Despite the many efforts to disenfranchise voters - whether nefarious or incompetent - an estimated 64% of voters cast a ballot this year, the best turnout in 100 years.

What was the ACLU’s role in all of this?

In addition to providing over 35 state-specific voter empowerment cards, filing legal challenges in multiple states and joining Election Protection, the ACLU Voting Rights Project set up a voter information and assistance hotline to help people know their voting rights.

From September 29 through Election Day, the ACLU received nearly 500 calls. Here is a run-down on what the calls were about:

195 general calls: voters locating their polling place and polling place hours, verifying registration status, and inquiring about laws regarding time off to vote

61 administrative issue calls: problems at polling places, statewide database issues, long lines, voter purges, challengers, poll workers, and phone lines

23 calls about absentee ballots: voters never received the ballots, states were tardy in mailing absentee ballots, and/or the county never receiving a completed ballot from the voter

69 calls regarding felon enfranchisement: to verify if a formerly convicted person could vote, a number of calls in Georgia where persons never convicted were denied the right to vote

45 electioneering calls: reports of campaigning within the designated area of polling places, rules about wearing candidate-specific paraphernalia to the polls

10 calls on voting and voting rights for those with disabilities

5 student voting-related calls

35 miscellaneous callers wanted to voice their opinion about the electoral system, engage in partisan banter, or request our published material

The VRP is continuing to take calls and follow-up on many of these items. Click here for the full prliminary report. Check back for a more detailed report after we’ve completed initial follow-up, detailed monitoring efforts by the ACLU affiliates, and obtained further information and decisions regarding voting rights lawsuits.

It was about time! Yesterday, the Department of Veterans Affairs reversed course and lifted its inexplicable ban on nonpartisan voter registration drives in its facilities around the country. As a result of the decision, over 100,000 veterans will now be able to register to vote in the VA’s nursing homes, homeless shelters and rehabilitation centers.

Last May, the department issued a directive (PDF) banning the dissemination of voting information and other voter registration efforts in federally financed VA facilities. Why? Because the VA claimed that voting drives are disruptive to veterans and that allowing employees to help patients register to vote is tantamount to engaging in “partisan political activities.” Both charges were baseless. It takes just a few minutes to complete a voter registration card and registering to vote is obviously not a partisan activity.

Veterans deserve better than a federal government that denies them the fundamental right to vote, a right they have fought so hard to protect.

Credit is due to the voting rights organizations and elected officials who aggressively challenged the department’s misguided directive. However, it is troubling that there’s so little time to take advantage of this rule change before the election. Hopefully the registration effort will begin immediately so that all veterans will be given the opportunity to vote this November.

As Schoolhouse Rock put it so succinctly:

Oh, we were suffering until suffrage,
Not a woman here could vote, no matter what age,
Then the 19th Amendment struck down that restrictive rule. (Oh yeah!)

It was 88 years ago today that the 19th Amendment of the Constitution was certified, guaranteeing women the right to vote in this country. And this day brings cause to celebrate a huge step towards universal suffrage — or, put more simply, expanding the right to vote to every man and woman in America.

It’s stunning to think of how far we’ve come. In 1919, a woman couldn’t enter a voting booth. In 2008, a woman serves as Secretary of State. A woman serves as Speaker of the House. And America very nearly saw its first woman on the presidential ballot.

In recent years, women have consistently cast a majority of votes in presidential elections. In this exhilarating election year, women are once again poised to represent a greater piece of the electoral pie than men.

But sometimes the appearance of progress fails to tell the whole story.

There are still far too many barriers that stand in the way of truly universal suffrage. According to a census data analysis by Project Vote (PDF), restrictions on the right to vote, like state photo identification laws, are likely to harm women voters (as well as minorities, people with disabilities, and senior citizens) disproportionately.

They found:

• Women are more than twice as likely as men not to have a drivers’ license.
• One of every five senior women does not have a license.
• Of all Americans without a license, over 70 percent are women.

So let’s celebrate today, but never take our eyes off the prize, because we’re not there yet. The obstacles to full voting equality aren’t what they were, but they’re not what they should be: nonexistent. Until that day, we’ll have to keep fighting to end disenfranchising laws and practices that stand in the way of voting equality.

On Monday, ACLU attorneys attended a meeting with the judge and opposing counsel on our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, ACLU v. Department of Defense.

Today the judge issued an order that demands Special Prosecutor John Durham submit one more declaration (by September 10) explaining how and why the production of a catalog of information about the destroyed interrogation videos interferes with the DOJ’s criminal investigation. This information includes:

1. A list identifying and describing each of the destroyed records
2. A list of any summaries, transcripts, or memoranda regarding the records, and of any reconstruction of the records’ contents; and
3. Identification of any witnesses who may have viewed the videotapes or retained custody of the videotapes before their destruction.

At Monday’s meeting, the judge clearly stated that he did not believe this information would interfere.

For now, the judge deferred making a decision on the contempt issue, but appears to indicate that he wants to move forward. He has clearly expressed frustration with the government’s argument that his hands are tied because of the ongoing criminal investigation.

On Friday, attorney Amrit Singh will be a guest on Glenn Greenwald’s radio show discussing the ACLU’s contempt motion against the CIA. Check out Amrit’s interview and stay tuned as this case unfolds.

Big news out of Alabama this week. The ACLU and ACLU of Alabama filed a new lawsuit against election officials over the state’s expansive and unconstitutional voter disenfranchisement practices. Approximately 250,000 Alabamians have lost the right to vote because of a felony conviction — that’s one in 14 people in the state.

Alabama disfranchises people with felony convictions involving “moral turpitude.” According to the state constitution, only the legislature can determine what crimes fit into this antiquated-sounding category. But that didn’t stop Attorney General Troy King from creating his own broader list of disqualifying felonies in 2005. The AG’s list included several nonviolent offenses, including forgery. That’s right, forgery.

To make matters worse, election administrators across Alabama are currently disqualifying citizens from voting for felony convictions that neither the legislature nor the attorney general has ever listed as disfranchising offenses.

Check out today’s excellent New York Times story on the case that features ACLU Voting Rights Project Director Laughlin McDonald and one of our clients, Annette McWashington Pruitt, who was disfranchised because of a 2003 conviction for receiving stolen property, an offense not on the legislature’s list of moral turpitude felonies. She said in our press release:

“I have voted many times before. My father taught me this is what every American should do. But when I tried to register a few weeks ago I was told I couldn’t. My youngest son just turned 18 and is going into the Navy. I have another son in Iraq right now. Voting is really my duty because it represents the freedom my sons are protecting overseas.”

This shameful policy has no place in a functioning democracy. We are confident that the court will see the moral rectitude in giving Alabamians their fundamental rights back before the November elections.

From banning sex toys to cracking down on Chippendales, what will politicians think of next when it comes to legislating the private behavior of adults? Be sure to check out ACLU President discussing the always-provocative subject of civil liberties and sex on ABC’s 20/20 tonight (10 p.m. EDT).

Tomorrow in a Boston federal court, Melissa Goodman of the ACLU National Security Project will be challenging the federal government’s refusal to grant a visa to respected South African scholar Adam Habib. Back in the fall, the State Department denied Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that he is banned because he has “engaged in terrorist activities,” but the government failed to explain the basis for its inflammatory accusation, let alone provide even a shred of evidence to prove it.

We do know, however, that Habib – a distinguished professor and popular pundit in his home country – has openly objected to the war in Iraq and other U.S. foreign policies. And we have reason to believe that the government is excluding him based on ideological grounds.

By refusing to give Professor Habib a visa, the government is violating the constitutional speech rights of American citizens and residents. How, you ask? Because the right to hear speech is protected by the First Amendment too. Stifling the political debate in this country, the government’s refusal to grant visas to critics of this administration, like Habib and Tariq Ramadan, amounts to nothing less than censorship at the border.

That is why the ACLU filed this lawsuit last year on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S. Sherif Fam of one of these groups, the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights, blogged today about why his organization joined our lawsuit:

Presenting no legitimate reason to deny Dr. Habib an entry visa, the State Department clearly intends to deny the American public access to views which may not conform exactly to the Administration’s views. Besides violating the rights granted by our Constitution, what does that say about our country when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion?

Good question! We’ll keep fighting for every American’s right to enjoy the vigorous protection of speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

With the election season in full swing, the timing is perfect for the release of a new book called American Crisis, Southern Solutions, a collection of essays that discusses the state of the nation from a distinctly Southern perspective. Call me biased, but the best contribution in the book is written by our very own Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

Laughlin authored “Ballot Security” and with rich examples it describes the partisan tactics used to disfranchise voters across the country. The essay’s title refers to the insidious “ballot security” measures designed by lawmakers to achieve an unfair electoral advantage under the guise of good government. They include the recent flurry of voter identification laws created to solve the non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud. Laws like these have a disproportionate impact on low-income individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, voters with disabilities and many other eligible voters who have neither a government-issued photo ID nor the money to obtain one.

Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote because, as the Supreme Court has ruled, voting is “preservative of all rights.” Rather than erecting hurdles that prevent Americans from voting, lawmakers must ensure that every eligible voter is allowed to vote, and that every vote counts.

Laughlin writes that “one of the enduring, and unconscionable, ironies of our democracy is the willingness of those with the power to try to limit the right to vote for racial and partisan reasons.” Soon the Supreme Court will make a decision in our voter ID lawsuit and decide whether or not the latest ironic power grab will pass constitutional muster.

Today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to block the usage of a voting system that prevents voters from fixing mistakes on their ballots.

In December, Brunner cast a tie-breaking vote that forced Cuyahoga County (Ohio’s most populous county, which contains Cleveland) to adopt this “central count optical scan” (CCOS) voting system, in which paper ballots are immediately shipped from a polling place to a central location where they are “read” by an optical scan machine. Under this arrangement, a voter is given no opportunity to correct an error on his or her ballot. If this system is used in upcoming elections and voters cannot verify that their ballots have been completed properly, those votes will be spoiled and go uncounted.

However, optical scan voting systems with counting features that provide error notification to voters are used in other parts of the state. It is in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment - and the Voting Rights Act - to maintain a dual system of voting that does not value the rights of Ohio’s voters equally.

Once again, Ohio is an electoral battleground state this year and the votes from Cuyahoga County could very well determine the winner of the presidential election. With stakes this high and Ohio’s presidential primary only weeks away, Cuyahoga County must abandon its flawed and unreliable voting technology now in order to equally protect the rights of every voter.