PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON ROE V. WADE ANIVERSARY

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 22, 2015
Statement by the President on the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Forty-two years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that protects a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health, and reaffirms a fundamental American value: that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters.

I am deeply committed to protecting this core constitutional right, and I believe that efforts like H.R. 7, the bill the House considered today, would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today. The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families, and their doctors.  I am also deeply committed to continuing our work to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, promote adoptions, and minimize the need for abortion.

Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons.

AG HOLDER CRITICIZES WISCONSIN VOTER ID STATUTE

A.G. HOLDER U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PHOTO

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Criticizing Wisconsin’s Voter Id Statute, Attorney General Holder Pledges Aggressive Enforcement of Remaining Parts of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON—On the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, Attorney General Eric Holder pledged Wednesday that the Justice Department would remain aggressive in using Section 2 of the law—which was left intact by the Court’s decision—to guard against unjust voting restrictions.

Section 2, which prohibits barriers to voting that disadvantage minority groups, provided the basis for the department’s lawsuits last year against voting laws in North Carolina and Texas. It also formed the basis for a recent challenge to a voter ID statue in Wisconsin. In April, a federal district court sided with the plaintiffs in that case, declaring that the Wisconsin law violated both the equal protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Holder joined in criticizing the Wisconsin law in his message Wednesday.

“The Wisconsin law erected significant barriers to equal access without serving any legitimate government interest,” Holder said.

“It’s clear that discriminatory voting laws, rules, and regulations are not confined to any particular region. And thanks to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, neither are our enforcement efforts,” he added.

A full copy of the Attorney General’s video message appears below.

“One year ago today, in the case of Shelby County, a narrowly split but deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“This was a deeply flawed decision – and it effectively invalidated a cornerstone of American civil rights law.

“In the nearly five decades leading up to that ruling, a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act known as Section 5 – which enjoyed consistent support from Members of Congress and presidents of both parties – provided the Justice Department with a rigorous tool to fight unjust attempts to abridge voting rights.

“It required certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to seek “preclearance,” from the Department or a federal court, before new voting changes could take effect – so these proposals could be subjected to fair and thorough review.

“This empowered the Justice Department to protect the right of every American to cast a ballot – unencumbered by discriminatory rules, regulations, and procedures that, intentionally or not, discourage and disenfranchise.

“Indeed, not long before the Shelby County decision, a federal judge considering the Department’s objection to South Carolina’s voter ID law noted the ‘continuing utility’ of preclearance ‘in deterring problematic, and hence encouraging non-discriminatory, changes in state and local voting laws.’

“When the Shelby decision effectively denied us this tool, the Department’s Civil Rights Division shifted resources to the enforcement of other protections that remain on the books – including Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits barriers to voting that disadvantage minority groups.

“During the past year, we filed Section 2 challenges to specific laws in North Carolina and Texas that could disproportionately restrict access to the ballot box for minority citizens.
“Section 2 also provides a valuable tool to individual voters who seek to protect their voting rights.

“In April, a federal district court in Wisconsin ruled that Wisconsin’s unnecessarily restrictive voter-ID law, which disproportionately impacted the state’s African-American and Latino voters, violated both the equal protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“The Wisconsin law erected significant barriers to equal access without serving any legitimate government interest – because, as the judge found, and I quote, “The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.”

“By restricting access and decreasing voter participation, laws such as those in Wisconsin would shrink – rather than expand – access to the franchise.

“This is inconsistent not only with our history, but with our ideals as a nation – a nation founded on the principle that all citizens are entitled to equal opportunity, equal representation, and equal rights.

“And that’s why, across this country, the Department of Justice will continue to take aggressive steps to stand against disenfranchisement wherever it exists – and in whatever form.

“It’s clear that discriminatory voting laws, rules, and regulations are not confined to any particular region. And thanks to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, neither are our enforcement efforts.

“We will not simply stand by as the voices of many citizens are shut out of the process of self-governance.

“And in the days ahead, we will continue to work with Congressional leaders to fill the void left by the Supreme Court’s ruling – and use every available tool to safeguard the most basic right of American citizenship.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER'S STATEMENT ON COURT DECISION IN FISHER V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Monday, June 24, 2013
Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on the Supreme Court Decision in Fisher V. University of Texas
Attorney General Eric Holder today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas.


"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has followed longstanding precedent that recognizes the compelling governmental interest in ensuring diversity in higher education. The educational benefits of diversity are critically important to the future of this nation. As the Court has repeatedly recognized, diverse student enrollment promotes understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, enables students to better understand people of different races, and prepares all students to succeed in, and eventually lead, an increasingly diverse workforce and society. Business leaders have long emphasized the importance of a qualified, diverse workforce to their success in a global economy. And the federal government, in particular, has a vital interest in drawing its personnel, including its military leaders, from a well-qualified and diverse pool of university graduates of all backgrounds who have the perspective and understanding necessary to govern and defend this great country.

"The University of Texas’s implementation of its admissions program will now be reevaluated by the lower courts. The Department is committed to working with colleges and universities around the country to find ways to promote educational diversity that are consistent with the law."

DEBT PROTECTION FOR SERVICEMEMBERS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act provides debt protection
by Christoph Mlinarchik and Capt. Patrick Clary
21st Space Wing Base Legal Office
8/23/2012 - PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. -- According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the purpose of the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act is to protect "those who dropped their affairs to answer their country's call." SCRA extends the protection of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, which covered a wide range of topics such as foreclosures, evictions, rental agreements, installment contracts, credit card and mortgage interest, civil litigation and income tax.

The policy of SCRA is to ensure those who serve and protect their nation are not unfairly penalized in their private lives by the challenges of military duty. SCRA applies to active duty military members, Reservists, and members of the National Guards. Military life sometimes creates obstacles for military service members to deal with personal, financial, legal and residential aspects of daily life. This article highlights three major SCRA benefits: 6 percent interest rates, terminations of leases, and protections in judicial proceedings.

Section 207 of SCRA mandates that debts incurred prior to entry to active duty must be lowered to no more than 6 percent. This applies to consumer debt, mortgage interest rates, and private student loans but not public, federally-insured student loans. To activate this protection, write a letter to the creditor requesting immediate reduction of the interest rate to 6 percent, and include a short statement of how the service member has been materially affected by military service with a copy of the orders to active duty. Any difference between the higher interest rate and 6 percent will be forgiven and need not be repaid. These benefits can save thousands of dollars over the life of a loan. Remember, this only applies to preservice debt, not debt accrued during military service.

SCRA Section 305 governs terminations of both housing and automobile leases. After receiving permanent change of station or deployment orders for 90 days or more, SCRA allows terminations of housing leases without penalty. All that is needed is written notice to the landlord along with a copy of the orders.

For automobile leases, leases signed before service can be canceled after receiving active duty orders for 180 days or more. If the automobile lease was signed after active duty began, it can be terminated upon receiving PCS orders to a location outside the continental United States or deployment orders for 180 days or more. Remember these termination rights can be waived. Be sure to check lease agreements for SCRA waivers and request any such language be removed before final signature. If you have any questions about language in your lease, stop by the legal office and have an attorney give you an opinion before signing it.

Due to ongoing duties, deployments and PCS orders, attending court in distant locations is not always feasible. If a defendant in a civil proceeding does not show up to court, the judge may automatically find in favor of the plaintiff, which is called a default judgment. To protect military personnel from default judgments, SCRA Section 201 mandates default judgments entered against service members during active duty or within 60 days thereafter be reopened and set aside. Request relief from the court within 90 days of the end of military service to invoke SCRA Section 201.


SCRA Section 202 provides for delays in court or administrative proceedings for those serving on active duty. The proceeding will be postponed for at least 90 days upon receipt of a written request. The request must include an explanation of how military duty affects the service member's ability to appear in court, a date when the service member can appear, and a letter from the commander stating that duty precludes appearance in court. Beyond the mandatory 90 days, further delays may be granted at the court's discretion. If further delays are denied in the service member's absence, an attorney will be appointed to represent the service member in absentia.

Contact a legal assistance attorney in the 21st Space Wing Base Legal Office for further questions or legal assistance regarding the SCRA. Legal assistance walk-in hours are 8-9 a.m. Monday and Wednesday, and from 1-2 p.m.Tuesday and Thursday.