The Arc logo

Ensuring People With Disabilities Have Opportunities for Meaningful Relief Under Disability Civil Rights Laws

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

This fall, The Arc of the United States and other disability rights organizations filed an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit called Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District. The case is about what kind of damages Plaintiffs can receive when they file lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Here’s what you need to know about this case and how we’re working to ensure people with disabilities continue to have multiple avenues for relief under federal disability rights laws.

Background on the Case

When you file a lawsuit under the ADA, two types of remedies are available:

  1. Injunctive relief stops future violations of the ADA. For example, a court may order a defendant to change its policies around reasonable accommodations so that it will not deny accommodations to disabled people in the future.
  2. Money damages pay plaintiffs for the past harm of discrimination. Damages may be measured in many different ways, including lost work hours, lost opportunity to participate in a service, or emotional distress.

In 2017, two blind students and two organizational plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), alleging that LACCD failed to reasonably accommodate the blind students’ disabilities by refusing to provide educational materials in an accessible format. The Plaintiffs won at trial and were awarded $50,000 in damages. LACCD appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2021, which overturned the district court’s judgment and sent the case back to the district court for a new trial.

At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury again found that LACCD had intentionally violated the ADA in fourteen ways. The jury awarded $242,500 in damages to the Plaintiffs, replacing the prior jury award. However, the district court reduced the financial compensation to a paltry $1,650. Its reasoning was that following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a case called Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, emotional distress damages are unavailable under the ADA. The district court also entered a narrow permanent injunction against LACCD that only addressed certain violations of the ADA, such as inaccessible library materials and an inaccessible website. The injunction did not address many of the fourteen violations that the jury had found. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit again, arguing that the district court had improperly reduced the damages and had ignored the jury’s findings in issuing a narrow injunction.

Why We Filed an Amicus Brief

In November 2024, The Arc and its partners filed an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiffs in Payan. The amicus brief makes these arguments:

  • The district court’s injunction failed to remedy all fourteen violations of the ADA found by the jury. It ignored violations around inaccessible course materials, ineffective accommodations policies, and lack of training for LACCD disability personnel.
  • The district court should not have relied on Cummings in reducing the Plaintiffs’ financial compensation. Cummings is not about the ADA and only concerns remedies available under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Cummings should not be extended to cover the remedies available under the ADA.
  • Even if Cummings does apply, it does not reach the damages at issue in this case. The jury awarded the Plaintiffs damages for lost educational opportunity, not emotional distress. Damages for lost educational opportunity are still available post-Cummings, and the district court was wrong to reduce the damages award here.

Why This Case Matters for People With Disabilities

Disability rights statutes like the ADA are meant to root out discrimination in all areas of society, including employment, government services, and private businesses. Courts must issue broad injunctive and monetary relief when a jury has found proven violations of the ADA. This serves to deter future violations of the ADA, and also puts other potential defendants on notice that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated.

The Arc’s Position

The Arc participated in this amicus brief because we believe that people with disabilities should have the same human rights as all people and are entitled to the same benefits and legal protection of their civil rights. In our position statement on Human and Civil Rights, we share that people with disabilities:

…are entitled to exercise their rights and to have their human rights and civil rights respected. When their rights are violated, people with [disabilities] are entitled to protection, rights restoration, and compensation for losses.  All people with [disabilities] have the right to accommodations, assistance, and supports they need to exercise and ensure their human and civil rights. Local, state, federal, and international governments must strongly enforce all human and civil rights.

The Arc has been involved with the fight to pass, implement, and defend the ADA since the law’s inception in 1990. We have filed numerous amicus briefs and rely on the ADA in our own litigation efforts every day. We will not rest until every person with intellectual and developmental disabilities can protect their rights to the fullest extent of the law.

What’s Next

The Arc will continue to watch this case as it is argued before the Ninth Circuit. We will continue to fight for an expansive view of the ADA and its protections in courts across the country.

Red, white, and blue stickers that say "I Voted."

Federal Court Strikes Down Restrictive, Suppressive Texas Voting Measures in S.B. 1 That Limited Voting Assistance

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

Editor’s Note: You can find the latest news on this lawsuit in this case page. If you need assistance to vote, visit www.fvap.gov.

The Arc of the United States, along with The Arc of Texas, The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, the Houston Area Urban League, and ArentFox Schiff, today applauded a decision delivered late Friday, Oct. 11, that struck down certain provisions of S.B. 1, an egregious Texas law that sharply limits voting access.

In the decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the judge ruled that several provisions of S.B. 1 that restrict and criminalize voting assistance violate the Voting Rights Act and therefore cannot be enforced.

“This ruling marks a historic victory for voters with disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the United States. “The court’s decision demonstrates a deep understanding of S.B. 1’s harmful impact, forcing Texans with disabilities to choose between inadequate voting options or forfeiting their right to vote entirely. The judge’s ruling, influenced by powerful testimony from The Arc’s members, recognizes how S.B. 1 has erected barriers at every stage of the voting process for people with disabilities. Critically, the court understood the far-reaching consequences of S.B. 1, which not only puts care attendants at risk of prosecution but threatens the ability of voters with disabilities to live in the community. The Arc celebrates this landmark decision and remains committed to defending the voting rights of people with disabilities in Texas and nationwide.”

“This victory for voters with disabilities affirms, yet again, what a difference self-advocacy can make,” said Jennifer Martinez, Chief Executive Officer of The Arc of Texas. “I want to thank our members and allies who provided testimony. Without it, the outcome could have been very different, but your willingness to speak up about the unfair barriers you face changed history today.”

“This is a major victory for Texas voters, especially voters with disabilities, voters with low literacy, and voters with limited English proficiency,” said Jennifer A. Holmes, Deputy Director of Litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. “Many of these voters are in Black and Latino communities and face a myriad of obstacles to voting. We are thrilled the court affirmed their right to unfettered assistance to make casting a ballot possible without fear of prosecution of those who assist them.”

“Judge Xavier Rodriguez’s decision in our challenge to Texas Senate Bill 1 is a pivotal victory for democracy and voters who rely on assistance,” said Elsie Cooke-Holmes, National President of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. “While we celebrate this important win, our work is far from over. We urgently need federal legislation, like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, which enshrines the comprehensive voting rights reforms our democracy desperately needs following the evisceration of those protections in the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder.”

“The burdens imposed by this law on marginalized communities – specifically voters who could have trouble reading or completing their ballots without assistance – are real and stark,” said J. Michael Showalter, partner at ArentFox Schiff. “The Court heard voluminous testimony as to how the state’s failures to think about how S.B. 1 would work in practice precluded Texans committed to exercise their fundamental right to vote from doing so. We are proud that the Court stepped in and made clear that no one should be criminally prosecuted for providing assistance to voters to allow them to cast their ballots.”

The provisions the Court struck down in Friday’s decision include burdensome disclosure requirements on anyone assisting voters and a ban on compensation for individuals who provide voting assistance. The Court also struck certain language from an oath that Texas law requires assistors to swear under penalty of perjury before they can help voters, a requirement that puts these assistors at risk of criminal prosecution and chills the ability of voters to receive the assistance they need to vote.

The Court ruled that because it is too close to the election to change forms and ballot envelopes, voting assistance disclosures in those materials can still be enforced during the election, but individuals cannot be investigated, prosecuted, or assessed civil penalties related to these requirements. The ruling requires the Secretary of State to stop using the forms after the 2024 election.

Shortly after Texas lawmakers passed S.B. 1 in 2021, the Legal Defense Fund, The Arc of the United States, Reed Smith, and, later, ArentFox Schiff, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., the Houston Area Urban League, The Arc of Texas, and an individual election judge, challenging multiple provisions of the suppressive law. In addition to the provisions restricting voter assistance, the lawsuit also challenged provisions that limited early voting hours, banned 24-hour voting, eliminated drive-thru voting centers, limited multiple drop-off locations for mail ballots, limited the distribution of mail-in ballot applications, imposed burdensome identification requirements on voting by mail, and expanded the authority of partisan poll watchers. Other disability rights and civil rights organizations also challenged the law in companion lawsuits.

Although the Court has yet to rule on all the challenged provisions, it issued prior orders striking down S.B.1’s identification requirements for voting by mail and restrictions on door-to-door canvassing. These rulings have been appealed.

###

Founded in 1940, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) is the nation’s first civil rights law organization. LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the Legal Defense Fund or LDF. Please note that LDF has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957—although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights.

The Arc of the United States advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. was founded on January 13, 1913, by 22 collegiate women at Howard University to promote academic excellence; to provide scholarships; to provide support to the underserved; educate and stimulate participation in the establishment of positive public policy; and to highlight issues and provide solutions for problems in their communities. Since its founding, more than 350,000 women have joined the organization, making it one of the largest predominately Black women’s organizations in the country. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated has more than 1,050 chapters located throughout the United States and globally. The major programs of the Sorority are based upon its Five-Point Programmatic Thrust, which focuses on Economic Development, Educational Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health, and Political Awareness and Involvement. To learn more about Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, visit www.deltasigmatheta.org.

As a champion for underserved and marginalized communities, the Houston Area Urban League has a proud history of delivering impactful, lasting benefits to individuals across Greater Houston, regardless of age, gender, race, ability, or background. Our mission is to empower Black people and other marginalized groups to achieve economic self-reliance, equality, influence, and civil rights. We envision a community where these groups experience true equality in opportunities, justice, and prosperity. HAUL operates seven core programs focused on Education and Youth Development, Workforce and Economic Development, Workforce Training, Housing, Social Justice, Health and Wellness, and Entrepreneurship.

A person wearing an orange jumpsuit behind handcuffed from behind.

Understanding the Fight to Protect People With Intellectual Disability From Execution

/in /by The Arc

The Arc of the United States, along with our partners, recently filed an amicus brief in a critical case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Ex Parte Blaine Milam. This case highlights an ongoing issue in our criminal justice system: the unconstitutional execution of people with intellectual disability (ID).

Here’s what you need to know about this important fight for justice.

The Background

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with ID violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Arc played a crucial role in this landmark decision, with our amicus brief cited by the Justices in support of their ruling. In Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts using clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas (2017 and 2019), the Court strengthened this precedent by emphasizing the need to rely on well-established scientific standards in making ID determinations in death penalty cases. The Arc filed amicus briefs in Atkins, Hall, and Moore to educate the Court on the clinical diagnosis of ID and ensure that people with ID are protected from the death penalty.

Despite these decisions, courts around the country too often continue to rely on stereotypes rather than scientific standards when determining ID in death penalty cases. This results in wrongful death sentences and executions. At the same time, people with ID are overrepresented at all stages of the criminal justice system, including being arrested, charged with a crime, and serving longer prison sentences once convicted than people without disabilities.

The Current Case

The case in Texas involves Blaine Milam, a death row inmate with intellectual disability. Mr. Milam was only 20 years old when he received his sentence and was scheduled to be executed in early 2019.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended his execution to determine if he met the definition of ID. The state’s initial expert concluded that Mr. Milam met the standard for an ID diagnosis, but the state later retained a new expert who disagreed. Despite Mr. Milam’s lawyers presenting reports from four medical experts on clinical errors in the evaluation done by the state’s new expert, that opinion was adopted, and the trial court decided to move forward with Mr. Milam’s execution. He is currently on death row.

Our amicus brief urges the court to rely on well-established clinical standards and Supreme Court precedent when determining ID, rather than outdated stereotypes.

Why This Matters

  1. Fair Treatment: People with ID are at a higher risk of wrongful convictions and death sentences. They may be more likely to falsely confess to a crime, struggle to understand their rights, and have difficulty working with their lawyers to prepare their own defense.
  2. Life or Death Stakes: In capital cases, an accurate determination of ID can literally mean life or death.
  3. Use of Clinical Standards: Under Atkins, states are constitutionally required to ensure that people with ID are not sentenced to death nor executed. Despite Supreme Court precedent, some states continue to rely on unscientific standards for determining and defining intellectual disability, leading to wrongful executions. While this case pertains to the death penalty, it’s critical that court decisions that impact the lives of people with disabilities are properly informed and considered and not relying on stereotypes and misinformation.

The Arc has deep sympathy for the family and friends of victims in this case and supports appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. However, it is critical that courts utilize clinical standards and abide by the Constitution. In Mr. Milam’s case, the State’s latter expert did not rely on clinical standards for diagnosing ID.

The Arc’s Position

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) must receive justice in our criminal justice system. We advocate so that:

  • All criminal justice personnel are knowledgeable and trained about IDD.
  • People with IDD have access to necessary supports, accommodations, treatment, and education throughout legal proceedings.
  • People with ID continue to be exempt from the death penalty.
  • States use accurate, scientific procedures to determine ID in capital cases.

Learn more in The Arc’s position statement on criminal justice.

Our Impact

The Arc has been at the forefront of this fight for decades. Since the Atkins decision in 2002, we’ve been actively involved in fighting for the rights of death row inmates with intellectual disability in federal and state courts across the country. We’ve filed numerous amicus briefs, appealed to lawmakers with clemency petitions, and continue to advocate more broadly for the rights of people with IDD in the criminal justice system.

The bottom line is that people’s lives will continue to be on the line if well-established clinical standards are not widely used to diagnose intellectual disability in our criminal justice system. We will continue our advocacy for justice for all people with IDD.

The Arc logo

Advocates Fight to Protect Texas Man With Intellectual Disability from Execution

/in , /by The Arc

In a new amicus brief, The Arc, Disability Rights Texas, and AAIDD urge Texas court to follow science, not stereotypes

WASHINGTON, DC – In a critical death penalty case, The Arc of the United States, The Arc of Texas, Disability Rights Texas, and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), along with law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, have filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief urging the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to protect people with intellectual disability from unconstitutional executions.

The group is taking a stand in support of accurate identification of intellectual disability in the case of Blaine Milam, an inmate now on death row. Their message to the court is clear: when it comes to determining who has intellectual disability, courts must refer to clinical standards—not stereotypes.

Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel with The Arc of the United States: “The Arc’s advocacy led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling more than 20 years ago that bars the execution of defendants with intellectual disability. Yet too often, outdated stereotypes and misconceptions lead to unjust outcomes, particularly in capital cases. We’re fighting to ensure that courts rely on clinical standards to ensure people with intellectual disability are properly identified and protected from execution. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Jason Kanterman, an attorney from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP representing The Arc in this matter, commends The Arc and its team for their efforts in this case: “The Arc, Disability Rights Texas, and AAIDD play a pivotal role in protecting the rights and interests of individuals with intellectual disability and Fried Frank is proud to support these organizations in those efforts.”

The amicus brief comes at a critical time. Despite a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning the execution of people with intellectual disability, the practice continues. In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the special risk of wrongful execution faced by people with intellectual disability and banned their execution as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. In Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts consulting clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas (2017 and 2019), the Court strengthened this precedent by emphasizing the need to rely on well-established clinical standards—rather than stereotypes—in making intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases. The Arc and AAIDD filed amicus briefs in Atkins, Hall, and Moore to educate the Court on the clinical diagnosis of intellectual disability and ensure that the important precedent set in Atkins continues to be strengthened and upheld in jurisdictions around the country.

Maggie Nygren, EdD, Executive Director & CEO of AAIDD: “Twenty-two years post Atkins, people with intellectual disability, particularly people of color, are still vulnerable to wrongful convictions and death sentences. That’s because some states continue to rely on stereotypes rather than clinical standards for determining and defining intellectual disability.”

The amici have deep sympathy for the family and friends of victims in this case and support appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. However, it is critical that courts utilize clinical standards and abide by the Constitution. In Mr. Milam’s case, the State’s expert did not rely on clinical standards for diagnosing intellectual disability. This was after the State’s previous expert used the proper standards, concluding that Mr. Milam is a person with intellectual disability and should not be put to death.

This case in Texas could have far-reaching implications by undermining vital U.S. Supreme Court precedent on cruel and unusual punishment for people with intellectual disability. Executions have become less common as society’s perspectives on the death penalty have shifted. A growing number of states have been responding to these rising concerns by banning or putting a hold on executions. The pressure is mounting on other states to ensure their practices are constitutional.

The Arc and its partners will continue their fight to protect the rights of people with intellectual disability in the criminal justice system, ensuring that the Constitution’s protections extend to all.

 

###

About The Arc of the United States: The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC, and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About The Arc of Texas: The Arc of Texas promotes, protects, and advocates for the human rights and self-determination of Texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Follow The Arc of Texas on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and learn more at thearcoftexas.org.

About Disability Rights Texas: Disability Rights Texas is the federally designated legal protection and advocacy agency (P&A) for people with disabilities in Texas established in 1977. Its mission is to help people with disabilities understand and exercise their rights under the law, ensuring their full and equal participation in society. To learn more, visit our website: www.drtx.org.

About the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD): Established in 1876, AAIDD is the oldest and largest professional society in the U.S. concerned with intellectual and developmental disabilities. AAIDD promotes progressive policies, sound research, effective practices, and universal human rights for people with IDD. AAIDD engages its members and the general public through its three highly regarded professional journals, catalog of well-respected books and assessment tools, quality educational programming, and partnerships with other leaders within the disability community to address issues that are important to people with disabilities and their families.  Learn more at www.aaidd.org.

About Fried Frank: Fried Frank’s more than 750 lawyers are located in the key financial and government centers of New York, Washington, DC, London, Frankfurt and Brussels. The firm provides highly commercial guidance on sophisticated transactions, advises some of the largest private equity and asset management firms in the world, and develops effective litigation strategies to address its clients’ most critical challenges. More information can be found at www.friedfrank.com.

The Arc logo

25 Patient and Provider Groups Applaud Supreme Court Ruling, but Express Concern About Other Plaintiffs Keeping FDA Authority Challenge Alive

/in /by The Arc

Washington, DC – Our 25 organizations, representing patients with serious health conditions and disabilities and their providers, applaud the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling reversing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v FDA et al, on the grounds that the plaintiffs don’t have standing in their challenge concerning the use and availability of Mifepristone, a drug prescribed for the treatment of a variety of life-threatening conditions, including cancer. We remain concerned that different plaintiffs will continue to pursue dangerous and unfounded arguments that undermine the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decisions about drug safety. Today’s ruling allows the possibility that others will continue pursuing the challenge to the FDA’s decisions regarding Mifepristone and that future litigants will seek to block or limit access to other FDA-approved drugs and treatments for reasons unrelated to safety and efficacy, as warned in our amicus brief.

Generations of Americans have trusted the FDA’s expertise, which, over time, has yielded rigorous, science- and evidence-based approval of tens of thousands of lifesaving and life-changing medications and devices for people with serious health conditions. FDA experts are best equipped to determine the safety and efficacy of medications and their conditions of use, and it is dangerous to eviscerate or dilute their authority.

We unequivocally support the FDA’s role in safeguarding patients and urge the Department of Justice to continue rigorously defending that authority.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
The ALS Association
American Cancer Society
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society of Hematology
The Arc
Arthritis Foundation
Association for Clinical Oncology
CancerCare
Council of Medical Specialty Societies
Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Epilepsy Foundation
Friends of Cancer Research
HealthyWomen
Hemophilia Federation of America
Lupus Foundation of America
Muscular Dystrophy Association
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Organization for Rare Disorders
National Patient Advocate Foundation
RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association

The Arc logo

The Arc Fights for the Rights of Homeless People With Disabilities in Landmark Supreme Court Case

/in , /by The Arc

The Arc Joins Law Enforcement Associations, Faith-Based Organizations, Medical Professionals, Legal Experts, Academic Leaders, Advocates, and Members of Congress in an Amicus Brief Urging an End to the Criminalization of Homelessness

Washington, DC — In a historic move to protect the rights of people with disabilities experiencing homelessness, The Arc of the United States has joined a powerful coalition of advocates in submitting an amicus brief for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. Grants Pass. This case could end the cruel and unconstitutional criminalization of homelessness nationwide, a crisis that disproportionately impacts the disability community.

Johnson v. Grants Pass is the most important case regarding homelessness in the past 40 years. It will address the critical issue of whether laws punishing homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors with basic protections such as a pillow or blanket, when no safe and accessible shelter options are available, are violations of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

As noted in the amicus brief, the members of Grants Pass’ homeless community do not choose to be homeless. Instead, in a city with no public shelters, they have no alternative but to sleep in parks or on the street. The Ordinances do not deter disabled homeless people from sleeping in public places because they have no alternative. They do not rehabilitate homeless people from their involuntary conduct but make it even less likely that they will be able to obtain adequate housing.

People with disabilities face daunting barriers to accessible, affordable housing. Less than 5% of housing is accessible for moderate mobility needs, and under 1% is accessible for wheelchair users. Widespread discrimination compounds the problem. Housing costs are also prohibitive for many disabled people who rely on public assistance for basic costs of living. The average cost of a one-bedroom apartment in the U.S. exceeds the maximum monthly Supplemental Security Income a person can receive. With limited income and a lack of affordable options, people with disabilities are at heightened risk of homelessness and institutionalization.

“Criminalizing homelessness exacerbates the systemic injustices impacting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag, The Arc’s Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel for The Arc. “People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face a serious lack of safe, affordable, accessible, and integrated housing and experience significant housing-related discrimination. People with IDD are also among the nation’s poorest citizens due to inadequate benefits and services, putting many at risk of unnecessary institutionalization or homelessness. Punishing them for having no choice but to sleep outdoors is a moral failing that perpetuates discrimination, poverty, and segregation. It also does nothing to provide the supports and services homeless people with disabilities need to end the cycle of poverty.”

The Arc joins over 20 disability rights organizations and scholars in an amicus brief that demands justice for the rights of homeless individuals across the U.S. They are joined by the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) and a broad array of hundreds of organizations and public leaders who have submitted a total of 39 amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs.

“This case challenges us to face the reality that using things like jails and fines do nothing to solve homelessness and actually make homelessness worse,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director for NHLC. “Punishing our neighbors who have no choice but to sleep outside pushes them further into poverty and makes it harder to secure work and housing. The overwhelming support from a diverse array of organizations that we see in these amicus briefs underscores the need for our elected officials at every level of government to solve homelessness with housing and support, not make homelessness worse by using jail cells and bulldozers.”

Currently, more than 600,000 people in the U.S. experience homelessness on any given night, with nearly half—250,000—sleeping outside. Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows a rise in homelessness for both sheltered and unsheltered individuals in nearly every state. The primary cause of the record levels of homelessness we see today is the unaffordable housing market, according to research from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.

###

About The Arc of the United States: The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About the National Homelessness Law Center: The National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC) is at the forefront of the fight against homelessness in America. Our mission is to fearlessly advance federal, state, and local policies to prevent and end homelessness while fiercely defending the rights of all unhoused persons. We work to shape and advance policies at the federal, state, and local levels aimed at preventing and ultimately ending homelessness. By fostering partnerships, influencing policy, and mobilizing communities, the NHLC is dedicated to transforming how society addresses homelessness, striving for a future where everyone has a place to call home. Learn more at homelesslaw.org.

A school bus stopped with a diverse group of children, including children with IDD, waiting to get on and off the bus.

DC’s OSSE Sued for Failure to Provide Safe and Reliable School Transportation, Denying Disabled Students Access to Education

/in , /by The Arc

Class Action Seeks to Remedy Systemic Failure and Violations of Federal and State Law

March 7, 2024 – Parents and guardians of children with disabilities living in the District of Columbia (DC), along with The Arc of the United States, filed a class action lawsuit today against DC’s Office of the State Superintendent for Education (OSSE) for failing to provide safe, reliable and effective transportation to and from schools for children with disabilities, thereby denying students equal access to their education and unnecessarily segregating them from their peers.

“The buses meant to help children with disabilities build their education and futures are instead perpetuating their exclusion. This is not just a matter of tardiness or inconvenience. It’s stealing children’s opportunities to learn, grow, and connect with their peers,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel of The Arc of the United States, a non-profit that works to promote and protect the civil and human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. “This systemic failure segregates students with disabilities from their peers and deprives them of equal access to education in violation of the law. When school buses become barriers themselves, we need to fight to ensure that no child is left stranded.”

According to the complaint, the OSSE Division of Transportation (OSSE DOT) has continually failed to provide consistent, safe and properly equipped transportation:

  • Buses routinely arrive very late to pick students up from their homes, or do not arrive at all, causing kids to miss an exorbitant number of school days. One 14-year-old student was late to school 90 times in the 2022 – 2023 school year.
  • Students are picked up early from school and miss critical instructional time or are left stranded at school without guaranteed transportation back home. “Because [my child] consistently arrived home late, he would miss critical therapies that were ordered by his doctor,” said Veronica Guerrero, plaintiff and mother of a 14-year-old student.
  • Students are forced to spend excessive time on the bus, causing physical and mental harm when they are unable to access food, medication, or toilets. As a result, one 13-year-old student with a rare chromosomal disorder has arrived home on multiple occasions with a soiled diaper.
  • Buses do not provide appropriate accommodations (including properly trained medical personnel) and equipment that children with disabilities need to ride the bus safely. One eight-year-old student’s medical conditions require that she ride the bus with a nurse present. On multiple occasions, and without notice to the family, the bus arrives without a nurse onboard to properly care for her.
  • Buses cannot be reliably tracked, and families have no way to find out where their children are located while riding a bus. One 11-year-old student was missing for four hours before school staff located him.

“DC was under court supervision after a lawsuit for the exact same problem until 2012. Although the District had shown they were moving in the right direction then, now we are moving back to where we once were despite years of parents and community leaders working together to attempt change through local advocacy efforts,” said Kathy Zeisel, Director of Special Legal Projects of the Children’s Law Center and counsel for the plaintiffs. “We can no longer plead and hope for change. We’re taking action to ensure DC children receive the education they deserve.”

“The District’s failure to provide safe, reliable, and appropriate transportation to students with disabilities is part of a trend where the District does not live up to its obligations to children and families,” said Kaitlin Banner, Deputy Legal Director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and plaintiff counsel. “We hope this lawsuit creates the systemic changes we need for students to get to school safely and on time so they can learn.”

The plaintiffs include parents and guardians of children with a range of disabilities who require transportation accommodations and support to access their education. Together they seek to remedy this systemic failure, which violates federal and state law, including the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA).

Under the IDEA, DC students with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), which must include services and accommodations set forth in students’ individualized education plans (IEPs), including transportation. The ADA, Section 504, and the DCHRA require that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to access their education and prohibit unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities.

“Children with disabilities are missing critical education and related services, all of which are necessary for them to receive a free appropriate public education guaranteed under the IDEA,” said Margaret Warner, a Partner at international law firm McDermott Will & Emery and counsel for the plaintiffs. “OSSE’s transportation system that provides these services continually fails to reasonably support DC students’ special education, as mandated by their IEPs.”

The case is Robertson v. District of Columbia and has been filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shira Wakschlag and Evan Monod of The Arc of the United States; Kathy Zeisel of DC’s Children’s Law Center; Kaitlin R. Banner, Margaret F. Hart, and Chelsea Sullivan of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; and Margaret H. Warner, Eugene I. Goldman, Theodore E. Alexander and Christopher M. Shoemaker of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

###

About The Arc of the United States
The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC, and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

About Children’s Law Center
Children’s Law Center believes every child should grow up with a strong foundation of family, health, and education and live in a world free from poverty, trauma, racism and other forms of oppression. Our more than 100 staff—together with DC children and families, community partners, and pro bono attorneys—use the law to solve children’s urgent problems today and improve the systems that will affect their lives tomorrow. Since our founding in 1996, we have reached more than 50,000 children and families directly and multiplied our impact by advocating for city-wide solutions that benefit hundreds of thousands more. For more information, please visit www.childrenslawcenter.org.

About the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit www.washlaw.org.

About McDermott Will & Emery
McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. Our team works seamlessly across practices and industries to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success. More than 1,400 lawyers strong, we bring our personal passion and legal prowess to bear in every matter for our clients and the people they serve. For more information, please visit www.mwe.com.

The Arc logo

Landmark Trial Challenging Regressive Voting Rights Provisions in Texas Senate Bill 1 Concludes

/in , /by The Arc

Editor’s Note: You can find the latest news on this lawsuit in this case page. If you need assistance to vote, visit www.fvap.gov.

Plaintiffs argue state law discriminates against voters of color and voters with disabilities, threatening democratic foundations.

San Antonio, TX – A six-week trial challenging regressive voting rights provisions in Texas’ Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1) concluded with closing arguments today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuit asserts that S.B. 1 violates the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by targeting and making more difficult the methods and means of voting used by voters of color. Plaintiffs also argue the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by imposing voting barriers that discriminate against voters with disabilities and deny people with disabilities full and equal opportunities to participate in the state’s voting programs.

The case is comprised of five lawsuits, including Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott, which was filed in 2021 by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Reed Smith LLP, ArentFox Schiff, and The Arc on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League (HAUL), Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., The Arc of Texas, and Jeffrey Lamar Clemmons, a poll worker.

Plaintiffs are challenging several provisions within the restrictive law including: a ban on drive-thru voting; restrictions on early voting hours, which impose a ban on 24-hour voting; and new ID requirements for voting by mail. S.B. 1 also establishes new requirements—and possible criminal penalties—for people who assist voters who need help filling out their ballots, including voters with disabilities.

The timing of a decision from Judge Xavier Rodriguez is pending.

“True democracy does not tolerate barriers that make it harder for citizens to vote based on race or ability, but rather it encourages voting and political participation because diversity of thought, ability, and background makes us stronger,” said Amir Badat, Special Counsel, Legal Defense Fund. “S.B. 1 runs counter to the sentiment of participation and democracy.”

“We are not just in a legal battle; we’re fighting for the very heart of our democracy,” said Elsie Cooke-Holmes, International President of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. “S.B. 1 is a calculated assault on our foundational values. We remain steadfast in combating these discriminatory practices to guarantee every citizen’s unimpeded access to the ballot box, ensuring their vote is cast and counted.”

“Democracy works when elections are accessible to all eligible voters,” said Kenneth Broughton, Partner, Reed Smith LLP. “This legislation prevents, inhibits, and discourages eligible voters from casting their ballots in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution.”

“We are proud to stand with our clients Houston Area Urban League, Delta Sigma Theta, The Arc of Texas, and Jeffrey Clemmons, to protect the rights of all Texans—no matter their race, their language, or whether or not they identify as having disability—to meaningfully participate in the political process,” said J. Michael Showalter, Partner, ArentFox Schiff.

“S.B. 1 poses a Catch-22 for disabled voters, because it makes both in-person voting and voting by mail more burdensome and inaccessible,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy & General Counsel, The Arc of the United States. “Throughout trial, we have heard from voters with disabilities about how S.B. 1 raises the cost of voting and forces voters with disabilities to rely on burdensome workarounds that require them to expend significant additional time, subject themselves to physical pain and mental stress, experience multiple ballot rejections, and work twice as hard as non-disabled voters in order to participate in the voting process and have their vote counted, making them feel like second-class citizens. This is not the equal opportunity the ADA was enacted to provide and cannot possibly be consistent with the ADA’s clear and comprehensive mandate to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities and integrate them into the mainstream of American life.”

“In 2020, we saw bigger turnout numbers in Harris County than ever before. Not only can we boast that we have the most diverse county in the nation, but we are also civically engaged,” said Judson Robinson III, President & CEO of the Houston Area Urban League. “We see S.B. 1 as a tool being used to completely disrupt diverse voter engagement and participation here in Houston. Additionally, S.B. 1 makes it nearly impossible for hourly workers to participate in our elections. We believe now, and always, that shift workers deserve their right to vote just like everyone else.”

Contacts:

The Arc logo

Texas Voters With Disabilities Share their Stories

/in /by The Arc

The following blog post was originally published by the Legal Defense Fund and is reposted here with permission.

In San Antonio, Texas, community members and advocates gathered outside of the federal courthouse on October 2, 2023 with emblazoned signs in hand, shouting spirited chants. As a trial was underway inside, echoes of their rallying calls for voting rights reverberated through the city streets. Candace Wicks, a retired teacher who traveled 300 miles from Dallas to show her support, shared her story to the burgeoning crowd with a mixture of frustration and determination. Wicks, a Texas native who has disabilities, has remained unwavering in her commitment to voting her entire life—yet since the state’s restrictive voting law S.B. 1 was passed in 2021, she has faced significant barriers participating in the electoral process.

In last year’s midterm elections, Wicks encountered an array of obstacles in attempting to exercise her right to vote. Wicks, whose legs and nine fingers are amputated and does not have a consistent signature, had her ballot denied because of a new signature verification process that S.B. 1 requires. Wicks also cited the law’s curbside voting restrictions and additional, limiting requirements on voter assistance as detrimental requirements for disabled voters.

“People with disabilities already face numerous barriers and discrimination in their daily lives,” Wicks emphasized in her speech. “Voting should not be added to that list. Our democracy is only strong when it represents all its citizens.”

Wicks is a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc., a historically Black service-based sorority that is named a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the voter suppression law. Lupe v. Abbott, composed of five lawsuits including Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott, argues that S.B. 1 is discriminatory, imposing undue barriers on voters to participate in elections, especially voters of color and voters with disabilities.

Plaintiffs including the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc., Houston Area Urban League, and The Arc of Texas argue that S.B. 1 violates the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by targeting and burdening methods and means of voting, like drive-thru voting and 24-hour voting, that are largely used by voters of color. Plaintiffs also argue the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by inflicting barriers to voting on voters with disabilities by imposing restrictions on voter assistance and making it harder to vote by mail, denying them full and equal opportunities to participate in the state’s voting processes.

The six-week trial began on Sept. 11. In that time, witnesses took the stand to provide testimony about their own experiences attempting to access the ballot box. Since being enacted in 2021, the law has already had grave consequences, rendering many residents unable to vote and making the process of voting far more onerous and burdensome, resulting in significantly longer voting times and physical pain for some voters with disabilities. Some who attempted to vote had their ballots denied.

For the several millions of Texans the law’s provisions impacts, including an estimated 3-5 million voting-eligible Texans with disabilities, the reversal of this legislation is dire for our nation’s democracy. All Texas voters, regardless of their identities or backgrounds, deserve to be counted—and their voices heard.

“People with disabilities already face numerous barriers and discrimination in their daily lives. Voting should not be added to that list. Our democracy is only strong when it represents all its citizens.” – Candace Wicks, Retired Dallas Teacher and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Member

Leading a Fight Against Voter Suppression in Texas

In the fight for an inclusive democracy in Texas, civil rights organizations are working together to fight S.B. 1 and bring forth justice.

“Our challenge to S.B. 1 highlights that voter suppression is a disability rights issue and that the fight against voter suppression lies at the intersection of disability rights and racial justice,” said Amir Badat, LDF Voting Special Counsel, who manages LDF’s Voting Rights Defender and Prepared to Vote projects. “There are millions of Texans who have a disability. Voters with disabilities are entitled to equal access to the ballot box. S.B. 1 undermines that right by increasing the already significant burdens that voters with disabilities must overcome to cast their votes and have them counted. By bringing this case, our plaintiffs who have disabilities are telling the world that their voices matter and must be heard.”

The lawsuit challenges multiple provisions in S.B. 1 that, by imposing undue limitations on voting, disproportionately impact voters of color and voters with disabilities.

Voting restrictions imposed by S.B. 1 include:

  • Limitations on early voting hours.
  • A ban on 24-hour voting.
  • A ban on drive-thru voting.
  • Limitations on the distribution of mail-in ballot applications.
  • Limitations and possible penalties for voter assistants, including criminal felonies.
  • Expansion of the authority of partisan poll watchers.
  • Criminal penalties against poll workers seeking to maintain order at the polling place.

“There are millions of Texans who have a disability. Voters with disabilities are entitled to equal access to the ballot box. By bringing this case, our plaintiffs who have disabilities are telling the world that their voices matter and must be heard.” – Amir Badat, LDF Voting Rights Special Counsel and Voting Rights Defender and Prepared to Vote Projects Manager

While the Texas state legislature makes claims of voter fraud, a myth long debunked by experts and advocates alike, the passage of the law is antithetical to true integrity and democracy—placing significant hardship on voters who have historically been counted out.

Texas is one of at least 18 other states that have passed voter suppression laws in direct response to voters from marginalized communities, including voters of color and voters with disabilities, making their voices heard in record numbers during the 2020 elections. Within Texas’s long history of voter suppression is a painful reality—the intentional suppression, prevention, and displacement of minority votes.

“People with disabilities have the fundamental right to vote and participate in our democracy, but this right has too often been denied,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel for The Arc of the United States. “S.B. 1 disenfranchises voters with disabilities by making it harder to vote by mail and receive the assistance they need to vote, and it denies people with disabilities equal access to voting in violation of the law.”

Voting Rights Is a Disability Rights Issue

Texas Voters With Disabilities Share Their Stories

Four voters with disabilities who served as witnesses in the trial discussed how S.B. 1 impacted their ability to vote, and what they hope to see from the state’s voting policies moving forward.

Some quotes have been condensed for clarity.

TERI SALTZMAN, Travis County resident and member of The Arc of Texas and REVUP Texas

Teri SaltzmanTeri Saltzman is blind and faced a myriad of barriers to voting by mail in the midterm primary elections. Her mail ballot was rejected multiple times because the ID numbers she provided didn’t match her voter registration record. She could not cure her ballot online because the state’s website is inaccessible to blind voters. After four attempts at curing her ballot, she was notified that her ballot did not count. Saltzman’s ballot was again denied in November 2022.

“I registered to vote by mail based on my disability and I have always done this successfully in the past. When S.B. 1 passed, it was the first time in my life I had difficulty voting due to its ID requirements and burdens. I never had this amount of challenges voting. I was never unsure if my vote counted.

“S.B. 1 has meant a reversal of rights for this community. Disability rights has everything to do with voting rights. What they’re voting for—transportation, education, housing, all those things—are linked to their independence as a person with a disability. I will always vote. But when I look at the ballot [sitting here on my table], I look at it with trepidation. [Voting] is something that I love…it’s something that is important in my family. But now, after a whole year of fighting to exercise my right to vote, I have this hesitancy that I never had before. I’m mad that it is there. But I will still vote. I’m concerned about voters who are already hesitant—who if they come across these barriers, might be prevented from doing so at all.”

JODI LYDIA NUNEZ LANDRY, Harris County resident and member of The Arc of Texas and REVUP Texas

Lydia Nunez LandryJodi Lydia Nunez Landry has muscular dystrophy and has encountered significant barriers since S.B. 1 was enacted. Landry prefers to vote in person but is afraid to get voting assistance from her partner due to risk of criminal prosecution S.B. 1 has imposed on voter assistance. She explains that her disability is degenerative and that as a result, she will require even more assistance over time.

“I think voting is fundamental to our democracy. The people that we elect are the ones that hold the power and represent us and make policies that affect our entire lives. [Elected officials determine] whether disabled people can vote, get out of their homes or have employment and educational opportunities, whether people are institutionalized or whether they’re able to enjoy basic human rights.

“S.B. 1 has had a very profoundly negative impact on our community. My condition has progressed, and I’ve increasingly run into more obstacles [since S.B. 1 was enacted]. I completely rely on my partner, who is also my personal attendant, to assist me with things.

“I think it really boils down to whether people believe that disabled people or any people from marginalized groups are deserving of the full benefits of democracy. We’re all interconnected. Disabled people come from every walk of life. And I think that’s the beauty of, at least, the promise of democracy—we all get to enjoy the same basic human rights and privileges as everyone else.”

LAURA HALVORSON, Bexar County resident and member of The Arc of Texas and REVUP Texas

Laura HalversonLaura Halvorson has muscular dystrophy and chronic neuromuscular respiratory failure. Halvorson relies on a power machine, a breathing machine, and personal care attendants for a majority of her care. Halvorson has encountered significant barriers to voting since S.B. 1 was enacted. Unlike previous years, Halvorson could not get assistance to vote by mail. Her personal care attendant, who is a green card holder, was not willing to assist Halvorson with her mail ballot during the March 2022 primary due to the threat of criminal liability and the potential impact on her legal status. As a result, Halvorson had no choice but to open and mark the ballot herself—a process which took her multiple attempts and was significantly longer and more arduous than if she had been assisted. As a result of these challenges, Halvorson chose to vote in person in the November 2022 election — a process which again took her significantly longer and was far more difficult because she did not receive any assistance.

“This new voting law makes it even harder for people to vote and [is] a huge act of voter suppression in a state with already one of lowest voter turnouts in the country. Once S.B. 1 was enacted and I experienced new barriers in voting, I felt it was important to share my story.

“I hope voting becomes easier and more accessible for people with disabilities in Texas, but I do not see how that could be possible with S.B. 1 still in place.

“It is important for people with disabilities and others in our lives to let our voices and issues be heard by politicians and reflected in their platforms to show the power of the disability vote. About one in four Americans has a disability, and many acquire a disability through the aging process and now also through long Covid, so disability issues affect many people and/or their loved ones in the voting process and access.”

JENNIFER MILLER, Travis County resident and member of The Arc of Texas

Jennifer Miller is the mother of an adult daughter, Danielle, who has autism. Miller regularly assists her daughter to vote, yet has encountered significant barriers in doing so since S.B. 1 was enacted.

“I care very much about this country as a long-time resident of Texas, and I care very much about my daughter. She has learned civic responsibility, and as a person with a disability, voting really makes a difference for her and her community. As a supportive parent, I want to let my daughter have the best life she can and be independent. One of those factors is her being able to exercise her right to vote.

“Voting is a constitutional right. If [S.B. 1] continues, a lot of people might give up and not vote. And that’s not right, because their voices need to be heard. Voting is everything to marginalized communities. The [Americans with Disabilities Act] isn’t that old, and we’re still fighting for rights.”

Being Heard, Being Counted: Making Democracy Inclusive for All

Closing arguments in the trial will be heard in February 2024. As voters await the trial’s results, one thing is certain — every voter has a voice that should be heard through the electoral process, and all people, regardless of their identity or background, are entitled to fully participate in our nation’s democracy. Texas’s electoral process should be accessible to all. A true democracy should be more than an ideal—it should be fully enforced through protections for all voters, including those who have historically had their ballots left out.

The Arc logo

Federal Court in Texas Hears Lawsuit Challenging S.B. 1, State Law Targeting Voting Rights

/in , /by The Arc

Editor’s Note: You can find the latest news on this lawsuit in this case page. If you need assistance to vote, visit www.fvap.gov.

San Antonio, TX – Today, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas began the first day of trial in a case challenging S.B. 1, a Texas law that targets voting access. The case is comprised of five lawsuits, including Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott which was filed in 2021 by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Reed Smith LLP, ArentFox Schiff, and The Arc on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League (HAUL), Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., The Arc of Texas, and Jeffrey Lamar Clemmons, a poll worker.

The lawsuit argues that S.B. 1 violates the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by targeting and burdening methods and means of voting used by voters of color. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by imposing voting barriers that will discriminate against voters with disabilities and deny people with disabilities full and equal opportunities to participate in the state’s voting programs.

The lawsuit challenges multiple provisions in S.B. 1, including its limitations on early voting hours and a ban on 24-hour voting; the elimination of drive-thru voting centers;  limitations on multiple drop-off locations for mail ballots; limitations on the distribution of mail-in ballot applications; limitations and possible penalties for voter assistants, including criminal felonies; expansion of the authority of partisan poll watchers; and criminal penalties against poll workers seeking to maintain order at the polling place.

“The plaintiffs in this lawsuit brought this case for one reason: voting is a fundamental right that is preservative of all other rights,” said Jennifer A. Holmes, Senior Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “But S.B. 1 is disenfranchisement by a thousand cuts. It makes voting harder at every stage of the process, disproportionately burdening Black and Latino voters and voters with disabilities. No plaintiff, or eligible Texas voter, should face these barriers to voting.”

“Our democracy should encourage voter turnout, not inhibit it,” said Reed Smith partner Kenneth Broughton. “This law erected roadblocks at every stage of voting, from registering to casting ballots. While election officials admitted there was no fraud to fix, they still made it harder to vote for all, particularly disabled people and voters of color.”

“Democracy begins with free and fair elections. Safeguarding voting rights and allowing voters to express their voices and be heard are fundamental to a democratic system. This legislation denies eligible voters this fundamental right and it needs to be protected,” said J. Michael Showalter, partner at ArentFox Schiff.

“Voter suppression is a disability rights issue,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel for The Arc of the United States. “People with disabilities have the fundamental right to vote and participate in our democracy, but this right has too often been denied. S.B. 1 disenfranchises voters with disabilities by making it harder to vote by mail and receive the assistance they need to vote, and it denies people with disabilities equal access to voting in violation of the law. If a wheelchair user faces an inaccessible building and must – with great hardship – get out of their wheelchair and crawl up the stairs to get inside, no one would argue that this is equal access. The same principle applies here. Voters with disabilities should not be forced to figuratively crawl up the steps to access the vote.”

“The Houston Area Urban League stands firmly against any legislation that could potentially disenfranchise voters, particularly those from marginalized communities,” said Judson Robinson, President and CEO of HAUL. “Our participation in this lawsuit is a testament to our dedication to ensuring that every eligible Texan has a fair and equal opportunity to cast their vote.”

“Texas Senate Bill 1 is a blatant attack on democracy and an egregious violation of the rights of all Texans, with a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino communities and Americans with disabilities,” said Elsie Cooke-Holmes, co-plaintiff and international president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. “For 110 years, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority has been leading the charge in advancing voting rights for African Americans and women, and will persist in advocating for this cause. We stand united against these grave injustices and actively work to establish a fair and inclusive electoral system that honors the rights of all.”

###

Media Contacts:
Jackie Dilworth, The Arc, dilworth@thearc.org, 202-617-3271
Ella Wiley, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), media@naacpldf.org, 212-965-2200
Brad Wise, NewsPros – Reed Smith LLP, brad@newspros.com, 925-588-4744
Linda Yun, ArentFox Schiff, linda.yun@afslaw.com, 312-258-4504
Kerry-Ann Hamilton, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., inquiries@deltasigmatheta.org, 301-265-5100
Emaan England, Houston Area Urban League, eengland@haul.org, 404-668-2329