Dear Mr President

Dear Mr. President,

We write with deep concern over a growing trend of laws and proposed legislation targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in Africa. These laws, combined with the growing public vitriol by government officials and the media, threaten to usher in an era of widespread oppression of the LGBT community in many African countries. We believe the enforcement of these laws would be a human rights abuse in violation of the standards set forth in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

Already this year, both Nigeria and Uganda have enacted laws that impose harsh penalties for homosexual activity and activism on behalf of LGBT people. Despite strong opposition from the United States and many other nations, Nigeria enacted the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act in January, and one month later, Uganda’s President signed into law the Anti-Homosexuality Act. In Nigeria, the legislation immediately triggered an outbreak of violent anti-gay attacks.

As you know, Uganda and Nigeria are among the countries eligible for AGOA, which has allowed for duty-free treatment of certain imports from sub-Saharan African countries since 2000. Congress passed this law with a clear intention to make the benefits of this non-reciprocal agreement contingent on these countries’ commitment to human rights. AGOA states that a country is only eligible for preferential trade status if that country “does not engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

The jurisprudence in the area of international human rights supports respect of sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights. We therefore ask that your Administration review Nigeria and Uganda’s eligibility for AGOA’s trade preference and, if it is determined that those countries are not “making continual progress” in meeting the statute’s requirements, that you take steps to revoke AGOA eligibility to Nigeria and Uganda in accordance with 19 U.S. C. §2466a(a)(3). We believe that the discriminatory anti-LGBT laws in those countries represent a clear violation of human rights and hope that the interagency process charged with AGOA’s annual review will make this recommendation. We further ask that you not restore eligibility until these beneficiary countries have taken steps to eliminate harsh penalties for LGBT persons.

As the International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly stated when AGOA was first passed, “Congress never intended AGOA to be a blank check for all African countries, without regard to performance. It was meant to offer tangible incentives for African governments to improve their political and economic governance, not to underwrite poor policies.” Some of the leaders who promote the benefits of AGOA in their respective countries, including Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, are the same leaders now presiding over the deterioration of LGBT rights in Africa. By revoking AGOA eligibility, the United States will be sending a clear message that countries must choose between enjoying the benefits of AGOA and violating the human rights of LGBT individuals. We thank you for your attention to this matter and urge you to act swiftly.

Sincerely,

Christopher S. Murphy

United States Senator

Tammy Baldwin

United States Senator

Martin Heinrich

United States Senator

Richard Blumenthal

United States Senator

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

Al Franken

United States Senator

Kirsten Gillibrand

United States Senator

Edward Markey

United States Senator

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

Mark E. Udall

United States Senator

Your Right to Vote in America

Voting Rights Act must be restored

Letter to the Editor from Devon Pfeifer of Weston Connecticut
Published in the Connecticut Post Friday, July 5, 2013
[Editorial comment: Shared In Its Entirety except for the removal of ridiculous, self-referential links inserted by CT Post. Large Print used for ease of readership's aging eyes. People died for the Right to Vote.]

----------------------------------------------------

The Voting Rights Act, frequently hailed as the single most effective civil rights legislation, was gutted recently by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts cited voter registration in Mississippi had grown from 7 percent in 1965 to 76 percent of the African-American population. He shared additional anecdotal information by citing the fact that Selma, Ala., where future Congressman John Lewis was brutally beaten in 1965, has a black mayor. The chief justice also wrote "African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5." Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) tossed the Voting Rights Act back to the polarized Congress, telling legislators to fix it. Roberts wrote, "Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions." The decision declared Section 4 unconstitutional because it was based on old voting data that had not been updated since 1975.

The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress in 1965. It was enacted to restore and protect the right to vote as provided in the 14th and 15th Amendments and was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.

SCOTUS struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which had identified nine states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, in addition to counties and municipalities including Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn.

These states, counties and municipalities were required under Section 5 (which remains intact, but toothless because of the court's finding on Section 4) "preclearance" by the Department of Justice or a federal court for any/all changes to election law.

In reference to the case of Selma having a black mayor, Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen points out: "In the history of voting in Alabama, not a single black candidate has been able to defeat a white incumbent or win an open seat in a statewide race. Black office holders in Alabama are confined almost exclusively to minority districts." He added, "While 40 percent of the white voting public cast their ballots for a black president nationwide, only 15 percent of white voters did so in Alabama ... There are still Alabama legislators who talk openly about suppressing the black vote and refer to black voters as `aborigines.'"

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, renewed it in 1975 and in 1982, and adopted a new standard for 1985 that provided a way for jurisdictions to get out from under Section 4. In 2006, Congress eliminated the provision for voting examiners. That year Congress held 20 hearings and accumulated 15,000 pages of documents supporting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, "Congress voted nearly unanimously to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. The vote in the U.S. Senate was 98 to 0 and 390 to 33 in the House of Representatives." -- The Christian Science Monitor.

Between 1999 and 2005, 153 proposed voting changes were withdrawn when the Department of Justice questioned them.
The Voting Rights Act was repeatedly challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, until this year.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice (and most news sources) the very same day that the SCOTUS decision was handed down Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said his state would go forward with its plan to redistrict because it no longer needed federal approval. In addition, Texas would implement a voter identification law that had been blocked because it did not meet federal approval. North Carolina announced it would go ahead with a photo ID requirement for voting and eliminate early voting.

A study in 2011 by Paul Gronke of Reed College and Charles Stewart of Massachusetts Institute of Technology titled "Early Voting in Florida" showed that a reduction in the number of early hours for voting lessened the turnout of black voters.

Teaching Tolerance graphed data from The Brennan Center for Justice depicting the percentage of people who lack a government-issued photo ID; the data revealed:

• 11 percent of all citizens lack a government issued photo ID;
• 15 percent of low-income voters lack a government issued photo ID;
• 18 percent of young voters lack a government issued photo ID; and
• 25 percent of African-American voters lack a government issued photo ID.

The court decision was best summarized by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who took the unusual step of dissenting not just in writing, but from the bench, espousing "For a half century, a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made. The court errs egregiously, by overriding Congress's decision." 
The Voting Right Act must be restored. It is the cornerstone to the home in which our democracy resides.

I look to our delegation of federal legislators, Sens. Blumenthal and Murphy, Reps. Himes, DeLauro and the rest of the Connecticut delegation to champion reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and bury Jim Crow once more.

[Ed.: OK Readers. Do something about this!]

Equal Pay Act Anniversary - But We Aren't Equal Yet.

Press Release from the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (CT)
18-20 Trinity St., Hartford, CT 06106 ▪ 860/240-8300 ▪ pcsw@cga.ct.gov ▪ www.cga.ct.gov/pcsw/    Pix added.

HARTFORD – Friday, June 10, marks the 48th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s signing into law the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill was aimed at eliminating the disparity between the wages of male and female workers. Since that time, the gap between women’s and men’s earnings has closed at an infinitesimal rate. In 1963, women in America made, on average, 59 cents for every dollar earned by a similarly qualified man. Today, women earn about 76 cents. Black women and Latinas earn considerably less.

Therefore, the Connecticut Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) calls upon Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which builds upon the 1963 legislation, and was reintroduced this year by Connecticut’s Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-3rd) and U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland).  In the last Congress, the Paycheck Fairness Act passed the House of Representatives but failed to pass the Senate by two votes.  It was reintroduced in both the House and the Senate this year, but no major action has been taken.

“It is unacceptable that forty-eight years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, which was supposed to ensure all Americans receive equal pay for equal work, women in this country still earn only 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men,” said Congresswoman DeLauro. “That is why I have proposed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would enforce and strengthen the Equal Pay Act. I will keep fighting to see this bill passed into law, and to ensure that woman get the respect and compensation they deserve.”

______________________________________

This is a photo of three smart Connecticut women: Teresa Younger, Executive Director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women; Nancy Wyman, Lt. Governor of the State of Connecticut; and Rosa DeLauro, Congresswoman, 3rd Congressional District, CT.


______________________________________
Provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1519, S.797) are:

• Clarifies the “any factor other than sex” defense so an employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show the disparity is not sex-based; is job related and is necessary for the business;
• Prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their co-workers;
• Strengthens the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages. Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only recover back pay or, in some cases, double back pay. The bill would ensure that women can receive the same remedies for pay discrimination that are available under other laws for discrimination based on race and national origin; 
  
•  Requires the Department of Labor to improve outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;
• Enhances the collection of information on women’s and men’s wages in order to more fully explore the reasons for the wage gap and help employers in addressing pay disparities; and
• Creates a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

“What’s significant about the Paycheck Fairness Act is that it really puts teeth into the original law,” said Teresa C. Younger, executive director of the PCSW. “It removes any ambiguity, holds employers accountable and has provisions for training and employee protections.”

About the PCSW: The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women was formed in 1973 under Sec. 46a of the Connecticut General Statutes to study and improve Connecticut women’s economic security, health and safety; to promote consideration of qualified women to leadership positions and to work toward the elimination of gender discrimination. As a non-partisan arm of the General Assembly, the agency monitors, critiques and recommends changes to legislation in order to inform public policy, and assesses programs and practices in all State agencies for their effect on the state’s women. The PCSW serves as a liaison between government and its diverse constituents, and convenes stakeholders, including the business, non-profit and educational communities, local governments, and the media, in order to promote awareness of women’s issues.