ºìÐÓÊÓƵ

The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, along with several partner organizations, is opposing a request to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) for a new rulemaking to consider changing the federal voter registration form to add a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship.   The federal voter registration form was created by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and under federal law almost all states in the country have to accept it as a form of mail voter registration. As intended by the NVRA, the form is a one page, streamlined application that an individual can complete and mail-in without providing any additional documentation. If the rules about the federal form are changed so that additional documentation is required, it is likely that many states would also change their own state voter registration forms to require documentary proof of citizenship.   This change would potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens.

Three transgender people currently incarcerated in federal custody have filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) challenging an Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States.

The North Carolina Department of Public Safety has continually denied Kanautica Zayre-Brown, an incarcerated transgender woman in their custody, access to gender-affirming surgery.

This case asks whether the trial record, without more, demonstrates that a defendant’s constitutional right to adequate legal representation has been violated, where the record reveals that the defendant’s attorney never sought to suppress the only incriminating evidence that the State had against them. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s SSCI and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Utah filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant's trial counsel in this case was indeed ineffective and that holding otherwise would undermine the right to effective assistance of counsel.