ACLU of Kentucky

homepage_header.pngAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky

We are freedom’s watchdog, working in courts, legislatures and communities
to defend the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people by the
Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

donate.png

 

 

action-alert.png

 

 

OOPS. Your Flash player is missing or outdated.Click here to update your player so you can see this content.
ACLU OF KENTUCKY CHALLENGES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS Print E-mail
Thursday, June 24, 2010, 1:27 pm

Plaintiffs argue $100 contribution limit

violates free speech in school boardelections

 

The ACLU of Kentucky today filed suit in federal court onbehalf of two plaintiffs challenging Kentucky’s $100 limit on campaigncontributions in school board elections. The law prevents individuals from contributing more than $100 to anycandidate for school board. 

 

The ACLU argues that the contribution limit violates donors’right to free speech, in that it impermissibly restricts their ability tocontribute financial resources to their chosen candidate.  It also undermines the democraticprocess, says ACLU Cooperating Attorney Amy Cubbage, because “the strength ofour democracy depends on ensuring fairness in the political process.”  According to Cubbage, “by limiting individualcontributions in school board elections to $100, the law effectively preventscandidates from marshalling the necessary resources to mount an effectivecampaign, particularly in the face of rising costs and special interestexpenditures.”

 

One of the plaintiffs, Mr. Ben Foster, previously ranunsuccessfully for Jefferson County School Board in 2008.  “The $100 limit rendered it impossiblefor me to raise enough money to compete” said Foster.  While pointing out that this case is not about his previousloss, or the ability of special interest organizations to promote their chosencandidate(s), Foster stated that “once my opponent received the endorsement ofone such organization, that group outspent me by a margin of almost 30-1.  I don’t mind losing, but I do mindlosing on an uneven playing field, and the inability to raise more than $100from any single donor ensured that I would not be able to compete in thatelection.”

 

Like Foster, the other plaintiff in the suit is an individualwho wishes to contribute more than the $100 limit allows, but is prevented fromdoing so because violations of the contribution limit are punishable as afelony under Kentucky law.

 

In addition to filing suit, the plaintiffs also asked thecourt for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the Kentucky Registry ofElection Finance from enforcing the contribution limit during the currentelection cycle.  The plaintiffs arerepresented by ACLU of Kentucky cooperating attorneys Amy Cubbage, Junis Baldonand Chris Johnson and by ACLU of Kentucky staff attorney William Sharp.
 
Court says pregnant women can’t be charged for taking drugs Print E-mail
Thursday, June 17, 2010, 2:02 pm

In cooperation with the national ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, the ACLU of KY submitted an Amicus brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court outlining the constitutional limitations on criminal prosecutions against pregnant women in Cochran v. Commonwealth.  The KY Supreme Court granted us a legal victory today.  See the story below reprinted from the Bluegrass Politics Blog.

Click here to read more about the ACLU of KY's involvement in Cochran v. Commonwealth, to read the Amicus brief, or the Court's opinion

 FRANKFORT — Women can not be charged for abusing alcohol or drugs during pregnancy, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that has generated national attention.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the state’s Maternal Health Act of 1992 expressly precludes women from being charged with crimes if they ingest drugs or alcohol during pregnancy.

At issue is whether police and prosecutors were correct in charging Ina Cochran with first-degree wanton endangerment after she gave birth to a child who tested positive for cocaine in 2005.

Cochran’s lawyer moved to have the charges dismissed. A Casey Circuit Court judge later dismissed the charges, but prosecutors appealed. The state Court of Appeals ruled that the charges should be allowed under Kentucky law.

The Maternal Health Act states that “punitive actions taken against pregnant alcohol or substance abusers would create additional problems, including discouraging these individuals from seeking the essential prenatal care.”

Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, writing for the majority, wrote that it was clear that the legislature never intended women to be charged. “It is the legislature, not the judiciary, that has the power to designate what is a crime,” she wrote.

But in a dissent, Justice Daniel Venters said the General Assembly never intended to create a blanket immunity for pregnant women. Venters also noted that Cochran was not charged while she was pregnant.

“Because the indictment came after her baby was born, it in no way discouraged her from seeking prenatal care and it in no way deterred her from treatment she might need to deliver a healthy baby,” Venters said.

Chief Justice John D. Minton was the other dissenting justice.

The case has garnered national attention from women’s rights groups and national medical associations, who say criminalizing drug abuse of a pregnant mother will only damage the child.

Women who think they might be prosecuted for drug addiction will not seek prenatal care, might abort their children for fear of being prosecuted or will not deliver their children in a hospital, they argue.

But many police officers, prosecutors and even family members of addicted mothers have argued that more should be done to deter pregnant women from causing lasting and sometimes debilitating damage to their children.

– Beth Musgrave

Additional coverage can be found in the Courier-Journal . 

 
ACLU of Kentucky wins appeal against Pulaski/McCreary County religious displays. Print E-mail
Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 11:26 am

Appeals Court rejects Counties’ arguments

 

At issue in this 11 year-old case are Ten Commandments displays that were posted in prominent locations in the McCreary and Pulaski county courthouses in 1999.  County officials claimed that the Ten Commandments provide the foundation of American legal tradition.   However, as many courts have found, the Ten Commandments are inherently religious principles and should not be promoted by government officials.

 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today upheld the permanent injunctions prohibiting Pulaski/McCreary Counties from posting three separate Ten Commandments displays in their courthouses.  The Court agreed with District Court Judge Jennifer Coffman’s ruling that the displays violated the constitution because the Counties acted with a predominantly religious purpose in erecting the displays, and because they failed to sufficiently establish a predominantly non-religious reason for the third display as of September 2007.

 

The ACLU of Kentucky filed these two consolidated suits in 1999 on behalf of its members in Pulaski and McCreary counties and individual residents.  The ACLU of Kentucky maintained that the displays’ purpose and effect were to endorse religion in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Judge Coffman initially issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting the Counties’ first and second displays on the basis that the displays likely were unconstitutional.  The Counties removed these displays, initially appealed the injunction and then, after obtaining new counsel, dropped their appeals.

 

Several months after removing the second displays, the Counties posted new Ten Commandments displays. These displays of “historical documents” contained American (and earlier Colonial and British) political and patriotic documents and the Ten Commandments. Judge Coffman held that these displays too were likely unconstitutional given the displays’ history showed that the defendants’ purposes were religious, not secular, and because the displays’ effect was to endorse religion. The judge therefore enjoined this third incarnation of the Ten Commandments displays and the defendants appealed that preliminary injunction.

 

Both the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Judge Coffman’s preliminary injunction ruling.  On remand, Judge Coffman issued the permanent injunctions and the Counties again appealed.  Today’s decision upholds Judge Coffman’s decision entering permanent injunctions barring the Counties from posting all three displays.

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>

Results 4 - 6 of 24

Event Photos

IMG_2396.jpg
9_08_074.jpg

Archive

Joomla Templates by Joomlashack