2003 COE Convention Report

REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON EQUITY

TO THE 65TH ANNUAL CWA CONVENTION - 2003

The National Committee on Equity recognizes that each year brings new delegates to our great Convention. In that regard, we want to take the opportunity to share with you the National Committee on Equity Mission Statement:

The Mission of the National Committee on Equity is to develop and promote the CWA Civil Rights program. Our vision is to build a union wherein members of all cultures, religions, sexual orientations, gender, disabilities, ages and nationalities feel welcome, respected, heard and where the leadership reflects the diversity of our membership.

The duties and responsibilities of the National Committee on Equity are to:

Provide guidance and information to the districts and locals on the CWA Civil Rights program.
Keep the CWA Executive Board apprised of civil rights issues that affect our members and communities and, when necessary, offer a course of action.
Research, report and make recommendations or give direction to convention delegates on current civil rights issues.

The National Committee on Equity convention report lays the foundation for the CWA Civil Rights agenda for the upcoming year. Local Committees on Equity are encouraged to use the report as a working document to move the Civil Rights agenda in the districts.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act - ENDA

Qualified, hardworking Americans are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance or abilities. Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether such orientation is real or perceived, effectively denies qualified individuals equality and opportunity in the workplace. Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the U.S. Constitution as the courts have interpreted it.

Employment discrimination strikes at a fundamental American value - the right of each individual to do his or her job and contribute to society without facing discrimination. Fairness in the workplace has been recognized as a fundamental right protected under federal law. Currently, federal law provides basic legal protection against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability, but not sexual orientation.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing basic protection to ensure fairness in the workplace for Americans who are currently denied equal protection under the law. ENDA does not create "special rights." The bill explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military, and does not require employers to offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

There is widespread bipartisan support for ENDA.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, in a statement on ENDA, strongly urged Congress to pass this important civil rights legislation. He went on to say that the AFL-CIO strongly believes that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong and un-American.

Currently only 11 States and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They are: California (1992) Connecticut (1991) Hawaii (1991) Massachusetts (1989) Minnesota (1993) Nevada (1999) New Hampshire (1997) New Jersey (1992) Rhode Island (1995) Vermont (1992) Wisconsin (1982) and the District of Columbia (1977).

In the 39 other states it is still legal for employers to fire or punish employees based on their sexual orientation, despite polls that suggest most Americans believe a qualified and hard-working person should not lose their job because they are gay or lesbian. Each one of us must take action against discrimination because an injury to one is an injury to us all.

Call and write your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to vote for ENDA (SB 1276), to become a co-sponsor if they are not one already, and to adopt an inclusive non-discrimination policy in their own offices.
Call and write your Representative at (202) 224-3121 or http://www.house.gove/writerep/ and ask them to vote for ENDA (HR 2355), to become a co-sponsor, if they are not one already, and to adopt an inclusive non-discrimination policy in their own offices.
Call and write your employer and community business leaders and ask them to speak out against all workplace discrimination, to actively work for the passage of legislation like ENDA and to adopt an inclusive non-discrimination policy in their workplaces.
Call and write your union leaders and fellow members and ask them to speak out against all discrimination and to actively work for the passage of legislation like ENDA and to make bargaining for inclusive non-discrimination policies in all workplaces and unions a top priority.
Call and write your union leaders and fellow members and ask them to speak out against all discrimination and to actively work for the passage of legislation like ENDA and to make bargaining for inclusive non-discrimination policies in all workplaces and unions a top priority.
Call and write your local newspaper and ask the people in your community to speak out against all workplace discrimination, to actively work for the passage of legislative like ENDA and to advocate for inclusive non-discrimination policies in all workplaces.
Initiate and/or intensify efforts to promote respect for diversity and fairness and to shed light on acts of intolerance and discrimination throughout your community.

Civil Rights Legislation at the State Level

Each year the Committee on Equity recommends support for various bills introduced in Congress. Little progress has been made at that level, and we expect even less now that the Right controls the legislative and executive branches. While the Committee is pleased with the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Lawrence v. Texas, we cannot rely solely on the judicial branch to secure our rights for us.

We must turn more of our attention to the states where, in 2002, The American Prospect, a bi-weekly news and views magazine, reported that "Approximately 150,000 bills will be considered by the 50 state legislatures, and about 25% of them will become law - more than 75 times the number enacted by Congress." The courts and the new Republican monopoly are aggressively pursuing a "states' rights" agenda. Likewise, we should focus on the states in order to promote the workers' agenda.

Now is the time to target state legislatures and ask them to introduce worker-friendly civil rights legislation. Legislation that would ensure workers' rights to organize, protect privacy, end racial profiling, end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and to pass hate crimes legislation. There is much work to be done. In April 2003, Minnesota became the first state to rescind domestic partner benefits for state employees. Arkansas, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming have no hate crimes laws.

By introducing legislation at the state level, lobbying, and building coalitions with other state civil rights organizations, we could effect change faster than is possible in Congress. When laws are passed at the state level, members of Congress are less likely to oppose legislation that has been adopted in their home states. In order to accomplish effective legislation at the state level, the Committee on Equity recommends that the CWA Districts and Sectors:

Encourage the formation of amalgamated state councils;
Provide basic and advanced training on legislation and political action to staff and locals;
Offer clear guidance to and counsel legislative committees and lobbyists about the need to work toward our common goals;
Commit significant staff time dedicated to the pursuit of state legislative and political programs and goals; and
Support the CWA Legislative Department's efforts to coordinate activities surrounding state Legislation into programs that deliver national impact.

Save Our Courts - Understanding Our Judicial Nomination Process

At the 2002 Annual Convention, the National Committee on Equity urged delegates to take a look at our country's judicial nomination process. Our report advised delegates that, under George W. Bush, 10 of the 13 Courts of Appeals could have a majority of right-wing Republican ideologues in place by 2004. New statistics indicate a strong possibility that all 13 of the Courts of Appeals could become saturated with a majority of judges steeped in such a philosophy.

This issue needs our continued consideration because many lower court decisions impact worker protections, religious liberties, environmental issues, human rights and civil rights. For many Americans, the federal judiciary is the first line of defense of our constitutional freedoms. Considering all that has been accomplished for workers' rights and individual freedoms through the Legislative Branch of the government now is not the time to have them taken away.

However, there is a growing faction of conservative lawyers and law students - the Federalist Society - that stands for a rollback of gains in workers' rights, civil rights, the environment and privacy.

Today the Federalist Society consists of about 25,000 conservative and libertarian lawyers, judges, law professors and students. Several of the top lawyers who helped George W. Bush win the Florida recount battle belong to the Federalist Society. The Society also has the likes of Kenneth Starr, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch as members.

At the White House Counsel's office, ground zero in the judicial appointment process, several attorneys under Alberto Gonzales are members of the group. It has become apparent that the Federalist Society will become the new gatekeepers for judicial nominees because many of their members serve inside and outside of the Bush administration as legal advisors.

Until 2001, the American Bar Association's Committee on Federal Judiciary had been consulted in advance by every President concerning virtually every proposed Article III federal judicial appointment since 1952, and the United States Senate, through the Senate Judiciary Committee, had been provided with the Committee's evaluation of every federal judicial nomination since 1948. The Committee's sole function was to evaluate nominees. It would evaluate the professional qualifications of persons nominated for appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States, Circuit Courts of Appeals, District Courts, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court for International Trade. However, on July 3, 2003, the White House cut the Committee out of the loop.

George W. Bush is pulling out all the stops to imprint a conservative agenda on the U.S. judicial system. The Bush administration has sent more than 160 nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate has confirmed 121 of them.

George W. Bush has been following the right wing, court-packing plan that his father and Reagan began in the 1980's to fill Appeals Courts with judges who oppose workers' rights, women's rights and civil rights. George W. stated during his campaign that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were his favorite judges, sending a vivid message about his judicial role models and how his mind works. With lifetime appointments, these judges will sit on the bench for the next thirty years striking down our most fundamental constitutional rights.

Sisters and Brothers, the Bush administration is trying to remake America through lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Just think about it: with the right people strategically placed within our judicial system, the Republicans do not have to worry about who's the president or who's controlling the House or Senate. They will change and control this country regardless of who's in office.

Senate Democrats, realizing this is an assault on their electoral base, including women, minorities, workers and consumers, are holding together impressively to stop the worst of the worst of Bush's judicial nominees. Senate Democrats are sending Bush a message that they have sufficient cohesion to stop any nominees in the image of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. Filibusters against Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen have prevailed, but our friends in the Senate cannot win the fight without our help.

Republicans are now accusing Senate Democrats of "obstructionism" for rejecting several nominees and carefully researching the views of others. They are trying to make it seem un-American to oppose or investigate a president's nominee to the federal bench, even though they've done it with vicious regularity themselves. The Republicans blocked 65 of former President Bill Clinton's nominees, while Democrats have only failed to confirm two of Bush's judicial nominees.

Republicans have launched an assault on the filibuster itself, calling it unconstitutional. Some GOP Senators are threatening a court case to challenge the filibuster's constitutionality.

These judgeship wars are about things that matter to us profoundly: the right to choose, affirmative action, civil liberties, equal rights, court-packing, extremism and the Constitution's granting the Senate the power of "advise and consent" on judicial appointments.

The National Committee on Equity urges CWA, at all levels, to join in the fight to stop the current administration's attempt to pack the courts. We encourage CWA locals to devote time and resources to educating our members on these judgeship wars that profoundly attack our Constitution, civil liberties, equal rights and workers' rights.

Personal Politics versus Union Politics: The Story of Elizabeth

A woman prepares to start her day at work. She has a well-paid union job, good benefits, and can retire soon with an excellent pension. She enjoys her work and has seniority rights. She answers the phone "Good morning! This is Elizabeth. How may I help you?" A voice on the other end introduces a customer who is placing an order for new service and is qualified to receive assistance due to low income. When the younger-sounding customer comes on the line she introduces herself as Elizabeth as well. When asked where she worked prior to the job she has now, she replies she served in the military and has finally returned home after two tours overseas.

As the two Elizabeths talked that day, the young one told the not-so-young one how, in spite of working forty hours a week and all the overtime she can get, she still does not make enough money to rise above the poverty level. The older Elizabeth asked the younger if she regretted her military duty. Young Elizabeth said no, she fought because she believes in her country. But she is disappointed in the policymakers who have created a system that has no place for her now that her service to her country has ended.

Two Elizabeth's - both are working. One has some privileges - the other has none. The difference between them is a union. Two Elizabeths who have never met impact each other's lives. Both are dissatisfied. The younger does not know how to make her life better. The older realizes she's gotten away from doing work that was important to her - fighting so that the young who will come after her can have the union benefits she has enjoyed.

Today, we face the most difficult times since the advent of trade unionism. Our numbers are decreasing and there's no point in looking for anyone to blame. The corporations we deal with are increasingly aggressive in their union-busting tactics. The political climate is blatantly anti-labor and pro-business.

Now, more than ever, we must separate personal politics from union politics if we are to survive. One way personal politics manifests itself is in voting based on a single factor such as family tradition, religious affiliation, a single hot-button issue, or a candidate's personal traits, i.e., race or gender. When we say union politics, we mean supporting legislation and candidates at local, state, and national levels who support trade union rights. This means policies that increase, not decrease jobs, respect our contracts, maintain our benefits, and ensure our work will remain in the U.S. For example:

Corporate downsizing in the industries we represent has had the following effect: loss of jobs and loss of income for families. These problems are compounded by the loss of sales and income tax revenues, which in turn results in cuts in funding for social programs that could have helped downsized members and their families.
Many members vote for a candidate based solely on hot-button issues. But if that candidate's overall agenda is opposed to the union's agenda, then those members should seriously consider rethinking their support for such a candidate, particularly because of the likelihood the individual, if elected, will accumulate an overall voting record that will negatively impact or eventually eliminate their benefits and pay.
As trade unionists, we must maintain a clear focus on what are the true issues of equity and fair treatment and not get sidetracked. Currently, the most accurate example of inequitable treatment of workers is the tax cut the richest 5% of Americans get compared to what the average person gets - not the Supreme Court's recent decisions on sexual matters and affirmative action policies in university admissions. Granted, some may be personally uncomfortable with these decisions, but it is imperative that as a union we stand united in our defense of the rights of all our members. Allowing the unfair treatment of one member to go unchallenged today will become unfair treatment toward any one of us tomorrow.
Currently, there are a number of bills pending on the rights of non-violent convicted felons. While many may feel this issue does not affect them, in some states, as much as 33% of the minority male population is removed from the voting population. The loss of this group that traditionally votes Democratic - and so votes labor - hinders our ability to elect candidates who will advance legislation that supports union families.

We greatly enjoy the benefits of union membership, as evidenced by our homes, cars and vacation pictures. As the face of our membership changes, we hear new voices that challenge such age-old union tenets as seniority. Many new workers assume their rights and benefits on the job come from management. At best, the one thing they associate to some degree with the union is FMLA. Anti-union forces actively court this group by playing to their personal politics. We propose a three-part program aimed at moving trade unionists away from personal politics and toward union politics.

I. Education

With the continual turnover of our membership, it is important to educate our members on the history of not just CWA, but of the labor movement as well. Without understanding where we came from, we'll find it difficult to move forward. Our future depends on an informed and politically active membership that is committed to the union.

II. Political Action 101

Political action among our members has to mean more than calling elected representatives during a push for an important bill the union is supporting. Many members who did not vote for labor-endorsed candidates admitted that it was not due to a strong objection to the candidate, but rather the manner in which they were solicited. To fully engage our members, we must give them more than lists. We must make concerted efforts to inform them of who and what affects their paychecks, working hours, and contract enforcement.

III. Organizing

At the June meeting of the National COE, President Bahr apprised us of the state of our union. There have been many wins in the President's, Executive Vice-President's, and Secretary-Treasurer's offices in their fights to preserve our union, but we all knew there would be. Likewise the District Vice-Presidents and Local Officers maintain constant vigils. Mergers are contemplated, and card check opportunities will always be negotiated. The labor movement was built on the back of organizing and it will live or die on the back of organizing. There is still a vast untapped body of workers who are unorganized. But now the challenge is greater because CWA must be prepared to say not only "welcome" to our English-speaking new members, but also "Bienvenidos," "Nghênh hoan" and "Ahlan wa Sahlan."

Many of you are probably overwhelmed by what you handle on a day-to-day basis as it is, so you may ask why organizing should be something for you to consider. We can only reply, if not you, then who? Those of us who have been given much, also have a greater responsibility. We inherited a vibrant and vital union. We are all here today thanks to the nurturing of someone else: a parent, a sibling, a mentor. We must honor the hard work of all those who came before us by ensuring that we pass on an even stronger union and develop a strong generation of new leaders. There is a young woman in Ohio whose name is Elizabeth. She fought for this country and for all of us. She does not know a lot about unions. The older Elizabeth promised the younger that she would not be forgotten. And so, she tells that young Elizabeth's story today.

By working to inform our members - to educate our members so that they can vote for the union agenda, we have an opportunity to make a difference for millions of young women like Elizabeth. ONE BODY, ONE VOICE, ONE UNION!

Political Patriotism or Constitutional Terrorism?

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USAPA) of 2001, is better known as The Patriot Act. The law, which vastly expands government authority while it reduces the checks and balances of judicial oversight, public accountability and the people's ability to challenge government, was passed, with minimal debate, by a panicked Congress just weeks after the September 11 attacks. Congress passed it in the most undemocratic process possible that was instigated by the Bush administration's implications that members of Congress who voted against such a bill were unpatriotic and would be blamed for any further attacks. Congress and the administration acted without careful or systematic effort to determine whether the changes would prevent any further attacks.

The extent of this new law goes beyond the necessary provisions for preventing terrorist attacks. The Act creates a new definition of "terrorist" and by doing so, has made many political activists in this country into terrorists. USAPA and other anti-terrorism measures undermine the rights of individuals not suspected of any crime and recklessly attack the constitutionality of the First and Fourth Amendments. Thereby, they erode the Bill of Rights.

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency now has the power to engage in widespread surveillance of protest groups or other Americans if they engage in conduct perceived to involve acts dangerous to human life or have the potential to influence the policy of foreign governments. The Patriot Act gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to detain or deport any non-citizen defined as "a domestic terrorist." Under this law, the fate of immigrants can be determined based on "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security, thereby granting the Attorney General power to order indefinite detention. It's just a matter of time before some ambitious prosecutor charges a controversial activist group with terrorism.

The Attorney General's reckless violation of due process currently has more than 500 detainees, the majority of whom are being held on charges unrelated to the events of 9/11. So far, the government has filed charges against 56 people for terrorism, but 41 of them had nothing to do with terrorism. They include Latinos accused of working without green cards at a Texas airport, as well as people who allegedly trespassed on the Navy's firing range in Puerto Rico. Immigrants who happened to be discovered during the course of a sweeping dragnet of the post-September 11 investigations have been jailed for many months. Not one of the 762 Arab and Muslim immigrants imprisoned has been charged with any terrorist activity. Justice Department officials admitted to the Inspector General's office, during independent hearings, that many in the group of detainees were not connected to the September 11 attacks or terrorism. The FBI is basically following the classic guilt-by-association policy.

Increases in the government's ability to look at records held by third parties on an individual's activity allows the FBI power to force anyone to turn over records on their clients or customers. That includes doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities and Internet service providers. Since passage of the bill, law enforcement officials have visited over 200 colleges and universities gathering information about students, particularly foreign students.

The principle that the government cannot access your property without your knowledge has long been recognized as part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Patriot Act unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures to allow the government to execute searches without notification until afterward. The government now can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through and even seize property and not notify them until after the search is completed. This new "sneak and peek" rule can be used as part of normal criminal investigations that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The new power created by the Bush administration's pushing the Patriot Act into law, creates a climate of fear and repression, undermines judicial oversight of government surveillance of citizens and erodes the crucial check and balance of accountability to Congress and the public.

The administration currently refuses to release crucial information about the 500-plus detainees. Attorney General Ashcroft has adopted a new policy that allows agencies to withhold information sought under the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Department's aggressive stance challenges the core values of American law and will lead to the erosion of judicial authority. Congress and the American people must carefully scrutinize the Bush administration's reckless disregard for constitutional democracy.

The current legislation includes a "sunset" clause that requires Congress to decide in December 2005 whether the Patriot Act is worthwhile. It is imperative that Congress reconsiders the undermining of constitutional rights perpetrated by this legislation. They will have to question whether increased security outweighs the cost to constitutional guarantees of procedural fairness, free speech and privacy. Congressional leadership from both sides must resist implications American citizens are unpatriotic if they oppose the current administration. Elected officials who disagree with this Administration should not have to defend their patriotism.

We, the Communications Workers of America, must be resolved to petition Congress to oppose the renewal of the USA PATRIOT ACT, along with any pending legislation being considered to expand far-reaching provisions, such as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), nicknamed PATRIOT II.

The National Committee on Equity encourages CWA at all levels to continue to lobby for legislation on fair immigration policies in order to free those illegally imprisoned detainees held by the Justice Department.

America can be safe and free.

Organizing, Mobilizing and Coalition Building

Organizing new members has been one of CWA's top priorities for the past 20 years. CWA leadership has recognized organizing as the foundation of our strength. In recent years the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. to work has increased. The 2000 Census documented what those who live in urban areas across the United States already know - that the color of America is rapidly changing. One of the most significant forces underlying this change is the dramatic increase over the past three decades in the country's immigrant population, especially Hispanics, coupled with a moderate increase in the African American-Afro Caribbean and Asian populations and a much slower increase in the Caucasian population.

As we move forward in our organizing, we should be mindful of these new groups of workers entering the workforce. In many cases, employers have been able to use these new workers to prevent unionization. Sometimes those of us born in the U.S. react negatively to new workers because they often don't speak our language well and we may be disconcerted by their foreign customs. A common remark made is "they're taking our jobs." Keeping in line with our organizing principles, we should actively seek to organize workers that are being abused by employers regardless of their ethnicity.

Furthermore, as union activists, we must be pro-active in making sure our members do not align themselves with those who would divide workers in the workplace or our communities. Through local Committees on Equity, we can help motivate others to recognize how minority-to-minority relations are altering the dynamics of American race relations in general. We can play a major role in helping to educate our members about our new co-workers.

For example, many of us do not realize that although Hispanics and blacks are referred to as "people of color," thereby setting both groups apart from whites, in the workplace they have much in common, although culturally different from one other. Depending on experiences in their native countries, many individuals of color consider themselves white, while the experiences of African Americans do not motivate them to consider these same individuals white. Such perceptions have the potential to impact relations within and between these groups as well as relations these individuals have with Anglo-Americans.

Local unions should develop mobilization strategies to help bridge any gaps that may exist, for by embracing diversity, we strengthen our country, the labor movement and our union. Locals can easily approach this by galvanizing communities around worker issues and using every available opportunity to educate and unite us as workers.

Coalition building is the corner stone to any great organization. Successful organizations recognize that they do not have to be the leaders of the pack in order to be effective. Through the years CWA has partnered with many grassroots organizations to advance issues that affect workers and coalition building is no different. We should reach out to those coalitions that are committed to new workers in our country.

The National Committee on Equity encourages CWA members to embrace, organize, mobilize and build coalitions in support of our new sisters and brothers for they are the workforce of the future.

While we all may have arrived in this country on different vessels - when it comes to workers' rights, we're all in the same boat!

WHY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Affirmative action refers to policies aimed at increasing the numbers of people from certain racial or social groups in employment, education, business, government, and other areas. In the United States these groups, among others, include women, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, military veterans of Vietnam and other conflicts, and the disabled or otherwise impaired. In general, affirmative action is intended to benefit groups that have suffered as a result of discrimination.

There are those who believe that while affirmative action was necessary 30 years ago, the playing field is fairly level today. That's like believing that negotiated benefits no longer need to be negotiated. Despite any progress that may have been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man and blacks continue to have twice the unemployment rate of whites.

There are also those who believe that a large percentage of white workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued. According to figures published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, there are 1.3 million unemployed black and 112 million employed white American civilians. Therefore, the math proves to us that even if every unemployed black worker in the United States would displace a white worker, only 1% of the white working population would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action only applies to job-qualified applicants; therefore, the actual percentage of affected whites would be a fraction of that 1%. The primary causes of job loss among white workers are factory relocations and labor contracted outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing.

Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 under slavery, 100 under legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else. To expect blacks to show the same upward mobility as non-blacks is to deny the historical and social reality that black people face.

Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

Some criticize affirmative action as a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality. However, affirmative action was never proposed as a cure-all for inequality. Rather, it was intended only to redress discrimination in hiring and academic admissions. In assessing the value of affirmative action, the central question is merely this: in the absence of sweeping societal reforms - unlikely to take place any time soon - does affirmative action help counteract the continuing injustices caused by discrimination? The research suggests, unequivocally, that it does.

While this country saw victory in the recent Michigan Supreme Court case that addressed affirmative action in higher education, there are no laws, policies or programs that can make a long, historical legacy of discrimination disappear overnight.

The National Committee on Equity recommends that CWA leadership continue to support affirmative action through CWA programs like the Minority Leadership Institute and continue their efforts to encourage Congress not to weaken our affirmative action laws.

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT (HAVA)

Given the fact that millions of American citizens were denied their basic right to cast a vote and to have that vote counted in the 2000 elections, the enactment of meaningful election reform has been one of the highest legislative priorities for labor and other grassroots organizations. After a day of chaos, a month of uncertainty and nearly two years of study and debate, Congress responded to the November 2000 election with one sweeping package - the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Some of the beneficial provisions of the Act include:

It sets uniform, minimum standards for federal elections nationwide, including providing voters with the opportunity to check for and correct ballot errors.
Ensures accuracy of state voter registration databases by implementing uniform statewide computerized lists;
Provides provisional ballots that allow voters who are erroneously left off the voter registration lists to vote and be counted once their eligibility can be verified;
Helps eliminate punch card and lever voting systems, and upgrades voting systems and equipment in every state and
Provides funding to ensure that voters with disabilities are able to cast ballots privately and independently.

While the HAVA Act is an important step forward in improving election procedures and administration throughout the nation, it does contain several troubling provisions:

Requirements that all persons seeking to register must provide the state with their drivers license number or, in the event they do not have one, the last four digits of their social security number. Any persons not providing either will not be registered. Once a voter provides either number, the state will verify the accuracy of the data with the state's Motor Vehicle Department or Social Security Administration. This system is cumbersome and prone to error.
The ID requirements of the Act fail to reduce its disenfranchising impact upon first time voters. The ID requirement should be linked to the requirement that a state have a computerized voter list in place. Instead, while the Act requires mail-in registrants to meet the ID requirements in the upcoming 2004-election cycle, it gives states a waiver until 2006 to create statewide-computerized lists. As a result, voters in states without statewide lists will have to comply with the ID provisions each time they move within that state. The burden of the ID requirement will have a tremendous impact on renters who are likely to change residence more often than a homeowner would.
Third, the Act invalidates the registration of any voter who does not check off a new, and easily overlooked, box on the registration form declaring that he or she is a U.S. citizen. This provision will directly affect many voters, including the elderly and other voters who may find filling out forms a difficult process. As a result, these voters will disproportionately be kept off registration rolls.

As we move toward the 2004 presidential elections, it is vital that each of us steps up our voter registration efforts. However, before you move forward, please review your state election guidelines and the new HAVA Act requirements.

Respectfully submitted,

Terez Woods, Chair Keith Robinson

Member, Local 4309 Vice President, Local 6310

Gwen Richardson Marlene Orozco

Executive Board Member, Local 1180 Vice President, Local 7777

John R. Wills Karen Kimbell-Hanson

Secretary-Treasurer, Local 2202 Vice President, Local 9588

Mary E. Garr Beverly Davis

Vice President, Local 3310 Executive Vice President, Local 13500