Retiring Arizona Prison Watch...


This site was originally started in July 2009 as an independent endeavor to monitor conditions in Arizona's criminal justice system, as well as offer some critical analysis of the prison industrial complex from a prison abolitionist/anarchist's perspective. It was begun in the aftermath of the death of Marcia Powell, a 48 year old AZ state prisoner who was left in an outdoor cage in the desert sun for over four hours while on a 10-minute suicide watch. That was at ASPC-Perryville, in Goodyear, AZ, in May 2009.

Marcia, a seriously mentally ill woman with a meth habit sentenced to the minimum mandatory 27 months in prison for prostitution was already deemed by society as disposable. She was therefore easily ignored by numerous prison officers as she pleaded for water and relief from the sun for four hours. She was ultimately found collapsed in her own feces, with second degree burns on her body, her organs failing, and her body exceeding the 108 degrees the thermometer would record. 16 officers and staff were disciplined for her death, but no one was ever prosecuted for her homicide. Her story is here.

Marcia's death and this blog compelled me to work for the next 5 1/2 years to document and challenge the prison industrial complex in AZ, most specifically as manifested in the Arizona Department of Corrections. I corresponded with over 1,000 prisoners in that time, as well as many of their loved ones, offering all what resources I could find for fighting the AZ DOC themselves - most regarding their health or matters of personal safety.

I also began to work with the survivors of prison violence, as I often heard from the loved ones of the dead, and learned their stories. During that time I memorialized the Ghosts of Jan Brewer - state prisoners under her regime who were lost to neglect, suicide or violence - across the city's sidewalks in large chalk murals. Some of that art is here.

In November 2014 I left Phoenix abruptly to care for my family. By early 2015 I was no longer keeping up this blog site, save occasional posts about a young prisoner in solitary confinement in Arpaio's jail. I'm deeply grateful to the prisoners who educated, confided in, and encouraged me throughout the years I did this work. My life has been made all the more rich and meaningful by their engagement.

I've linked to some posts about advocating for state prisoner health and safety to the right, as well as other resources for families and friends.

until all are free -

MARGARET J PLEWS (June 1, 2015)
arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com



INDIGENOUS ACTION MEDIA

INDIGENOUS ACTION MEDIA
ANTICOLONIAL zines, stickers, actions, power

Taala Hooghan Infoshop

Kinlani/Flagstaff Mutual AID

MASS LIBERATION AZ

MASS LIBERATION AZ
The group for direct action against the prison state!

Black Lives Matter PHOENIX METRO

Black Lives Matter PHOENIX METRO
(accept no substitutions)

BLACK PHX ORGANIZING COLLECTIVE

BLACK PEOPLE's JUSTICE FUND

PHOENIX: Trans Queer Pueblo

COVID Mutual AID PHOENIX

AZ Prison Watch BLOG POSTS:


Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Video Visitation at the MCSO: InSecurus and Sheriff Joe's newest money-making scheme...

So, for those of you who missed it, there's no longer such a thing as a "contact visit" at the Maricopa County Jails. Prisoners are also now only allowed one "free" visit a week, which must be conducted via videophone from 4th Ave Jail or the Lower Buckeye Jail. All video visits from off-site are unlimited, however - so long as you are able to access a computer with a camera and the internet, and can afford the $12.95 every 20 minute visit will cost you. 

As for the "inmate Services" fund this extra money is supposed to be going to: he should just refund it straight to the families, since the last time he had a chunk of change in the "Inmate Services" fund (where MCSO profits from the canteen sales presumably go, as well) he "misappropriated" it. Remember that $99 million he lost - almost $15 million of which came from this "Inmate Services" fund he likes to force prisoners and their loved ones to contribute to?

There never was actual contact allowed that could have facilitated smuggling at "contact" visits when they had them anyway - not at Estrella, at least - the women were always chained to the tables when visitors sat across from them. Mothers weren't even allowed to hug their kids. MOre access to prisoners from family the world is great - but should be affordable and not result in fewer visitation privileges for those who can't afford it. 

This is just more of the same: extortion and exploitation of what is largely a population of individuals who haven't yet even been convicted of a crime.  Arpaio needs to rein in his departmental corruption, really, if he wants to get that contraband issue under control, as far as I can see.


Anyway, this is what you should really be checking out - we got taken for a ride, people! 

GRASSROOTSLEADERSHIP.org:

#inSecurus | Ensuring Visitation for Prisoners and their Loved Ones

.... (among other resources...)



---------or settle for this, from azcentral.com---------------

Video chats replace in-person visits at county jails


Face-to-face visitation has a new meaning for inmates at Maricopa County jails now that in-person visits have been swapped for Skype-like video chats.

On Thursday, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office launched a Web-based video-visitation platform that eliminates in-person visitations and expands visitation hours.

The system, developed by Texas-based Securus Technologies, allows people from all over the world to talk to any of the 8,500 inmates in the county's six jails via video, as long as they have a high-speed Internet connection and a webcam.

The Sheriff's Office is offering a promotional price of $5 for a 20-minute conversation, but that price will increase to $12.95 for 20 minutes after Jan. 1.

Securus is paying $2.3million to provide 600 video stations to the six jails at no expense to the taxpayers, according to Securus CEO Rick Smith.

The system, which Securus says is the largest in the country, is expected to generate thousands of dollars for the Sheriff's Office while increasing jail security by eliminating the potential for contraband smuggling, an issue during the more than 20,000 in-person visitations each month, according to sheriff's officials.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said it will also allow friends and family members to schedule visits without having to miss work or drive down to a facility.

"It's a win for everyone involved," Arpaio said.

Remote visitations can be scheduled seven days a week between 7 a.m. and 9:30 p.m at
visitfromhome.net/maricopa. Visits must be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance.

Inmates can receive one free on-site visit per week, but they will be held through the video platform at either the Fourth Avenue or Lower Buckeye jails.

On-site visitation hours at those jails have expanded to seven days a week between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., up from a single visit on Sunday or Monday.

Sheriff's officials say on-site visits will no longer be conducted at the Durango, Estrella, Tent City or Towers jails, but inmates there have access to video chats.

Securus will receive 100 percent of the revenue until the number of calls reaches 8,000 per month. Ten percent of the excess revenue will then go to MCSO, and that will increase to 20 percent once the company's initial investment is recovered.

Money generated from the system will go toward the Sheriff's Office Inmate Services Fund for education.
The Sheriff's Office will store video calls for 60 days and will monitor calls for criminal or sexual activity.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Copwatch and Anarchists help bring down Sheriff Joe; Homeland Security finally ends 287g with MCSO



My earlier post was critical that the US Department of Justice hasn't gone far enough to prosecute Joe Arpaio, but my Spacebook community reminds me that a lot of people helped move the feds to act as they did today, and that was no small piece of ground we just took. It led to the decision by Homeland Security to finally cancel the 287g agreement they have with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), as noted below by Janet Napolitano. 

Without the work as well as the sacrifice of a lot of people - folks who don't put on body armor and guns, but have taken great personal risk nonetheless to document and fight our dear sheriff's crimes - today's DOJ ultimatum to Maricopa County never would have come. So, while I wish we were getting more from the feds (and sooner), I'm grateful to all those in this community that helped get us this far. 

Much of the evidence the DOJ and ACLU have against the MCSO - particularly in regards to their practice of racial profiling - was provided by people like Dennis Gilman and a fleet of observers with camcorders (organized by everyone from the unions to PUENTE) trained by Phoenix Copwatch (full of anarchists).  Props to the undocumented targets of racism, the UUs and black bloc(kers) alike who turned out for the protests when they were both big and small, to keep Arpaio's criminality and his incompetence in the public eye. Finally, thanks to all those journalists, (left and center) and bloggers who have helped amplify the voice of resistance out here, too, rather than just echo what comes out of the MCSO's propaganda machine.

So, relish this day and what comes of it; let's just not forget that the bigger picture without this one man - the capitalist, white supremacist patriarchy and prison industrial complex that have devastated so many lives and communities - will continue to exist long after he's history. Remember, too, that our dear DOJ is still part of that tyranny as well.

-----------------------

Statement by Secretary Napolitano on DOJ’s Findings of Discriminatory Policing in Maricopa County

Release Date: December 15, 2011
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010


“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is troubled by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).   Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust.  DHS will not be a party to such practices. Accordingly, and effective immediately, DHS is terminating MCSO’s 287(g) jail model agreement and is restricting the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office access to the Secure Communities program.  DHS will utilize federal resources for the purpose of identifying and detaining those individuals who meet U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) immigration enforcement priorities.  The Department will continue to enforce federal immigration laws in Maricopa County in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens, recent border crossers, repeat and egregious immigration law violators and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor.”

ARPAIO and the DOJ: We want a perp walk.



The DOJ just released a 22-page letter of findings, concluding that the practices of Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office violate the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Section 14141 of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. The feds threaten a civil suit to convince him to change his ways. It's just a letter, though, not an indictment - never mind the blood dripping from Joe Arpaio's hands. 

People have been harassed, detained, arrested, abused, and neglected to death in Arpaio's custody, and yet his treatment of them doesn't appear to be a criminal case - not yet, anyway. I "loitered" in a public park after the posted hours at a protest, though, and immediately did 18 hours in Arpaio's jail. I may face more time yet for my graffiti and activism on behalf of human rights, and he's taking campaign donations as if he's running for office again. Texas Governor Rick Perry even courted good old Sheriff Joe's endorsement for the 2012 Republican presidential ticket...that sure says a lot about Perry's character, doesn't it?

I assume that the letter of the DOJ's findings is addressed to Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, because his office will represent the county against any suit the DOJ actually brings (Arpaio's office has a private attorney) - all parties will fight at our expense, of course. Then there are the individual civil suits against the county and Arpaio that will all be bolstered by this finding; And there's the $99 million that he "misappropriated"; this man is costing American taxpayers a fortune. 

What Arpaio's term in office has cost us, though, far exceeds the expense involved in both prosecuting and defending him - he also cost the public our safety through his harassment and by clearing real crimes by "exceptional" means. He pursued his racist agenda and employed discriminatory tactics chasing down "aliens" at the expense of solving child sexual abuse cases, rapes and homicides - is it any wonder that so many of the victims his office ignored were children of undocumented latinos?

For the harm he's perpetrated all of our communities - flagrantly violating human and constitutional rights in the process - I want to see that man prosecuted. He owes hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution to his victims and has done violence to people's lives, as far as I'm concerned, but right now the DOJ is just talking about "reform" and "remediation". Someday I hope we have no prisons, but until we come up with a better way to protect the public from racist, abusive and dangerous people, I want to see Joe Arpaio locked away by the feds, not put into outpatient rehab. We have far too many people locked up on drug charges to be squandering resources rehabilitating him. It's time to indict this Criminal Joe - and let our people go.


4th Avenue Jail, Phoenix
Chalk the Police Day 2011



Investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

In June 2008, the Civil Rights Division opened an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following a comprehensive investigation, on December 15, 2011, the Justice Department announced its findings that MCSO has engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law. The documents on this page provide more information about the investigation, the Justice Department's findings, and next steps.

Findings Letter:
English   |   Spanish





Sunday, September 11, 2011

AZCPOA: Diaz v. Brewer: gender justice

From the Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association. I seldom post the stuff they send out, but this was pretty intriguing. I don't care much for some of the people Binh defends, but more power to him on this if they can get health coverage for all couples - and all kinds of families. Brewercare is killing too many people in this state already...


---------------September 11, 2011---------------


Recently the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in Diaz v. Brewer recognizing that the Arizona Legislature discriminated against same sex partners of state employees in rescinding their health insurance coverage.


You will recall that in April 2008, under then Governor Napolitano, ADOA rules were modified so that health insurance coverage could be offered to both same-sex and different-sex domestic partners. But, November 2008, voters approved Prop 102 which amended the Arizona Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, by defining "marriage" as the union of "one man" and "one woman"

The following year, in 2009, the Arizona legislature enacted House Bill 2013 that limited health insurance coverage offered by the State to a "spouse under the laws of this State." This effectively eliminated health insurance coverage for all same-sex and different-sex domestic partners as of January 1, 2011.


The Diaz v. Brewer suit was filed by a number of gay State employees to challenge House Bill 2013 as discriminatory. The plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction which was granted by the Federal District Court in Phoenix. The District Court noted that House Bill 2013 was not discriminatory on its face, because it affected both same-sex and different-sex couples. However the court found that HB 2013 had a discriminatory effect. This is because, under Arizona law, different-sex couples could retain their health coverage by marrying, but same-sex couples could not.


The preliminary injunction stopped HB 2013 from going into effect for same-sex couples (and required the State to continue to provide health coverage for them) until a full trial could be held on the case. Before a full trial could be held, the State appealed to the Ninth Circuit.


While the appeal was pending the preliminary injunction allowed same-sex domestic partners of State employees to retain their health coverage. Opposite-sex couples, however, lost heath coverage as of January 1, 2011.


A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Arizona District Court's ruling, found it to be correct, and upheld it. The State of Arizona had argued that the law was valid because it: (1) promoted marriage, and (2) was a cost savings measure. The court rejected the "promotion of marriage" argument because same-sex marriages are illegal under the Arizona Constitution. Next the court rejected the "cost savings" justification because the only "cost" evidence that the State submitted was the fact that 863 "same and opposite-sex domestic partners" being covered. This is a miniscule number compared to the 57,000 State employees who have health coverage for their spouses and families.


Once the State of Arizona's justifications for the law were entirely discredited, the Ninth Circuit had to uphold the injunction. The court noted:


"the district court correctly recognized that barring the state of Arizona from discriminating against same-sex couples in its distribution of employee health benefits does not constitute the recognition of a new constitutional right to such benefits. Rather, it is consistent with long standing equal protection jurisprudence holding that "some objectives, such as 'a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,' are not legitimate state interests."


The big question is what happens now? The State has a number of options: (1) the State can ask for an en banc rehearing in front of all of the Ninth Circuit judges and hope they overturn the decision, (2) the State can appeal to the US Supreme Court which will take some time, or (3) the State can let the decision stand and bring the case back to the Arizona Federal District Court for a full trial on the merits.


We should know what direction the State will take in the next few weeks. In the meantime, same-sex domestic partners of State employees will continue to have health insurance. Opposite-sex domestic partners, who lost health coverage in 2011 are not impacted by this ruling.


We are working on possible legislation to fix this issue for our opposite-sex domestic partner members. However, a lot hinges on the ultimate outcome of the case. If same-sex domestic partners wind up winning, we feel we have a strong argument to push for health insurance for opposite-sex domestic partners. We will keep you posted.


Martin Bihn
AZCPOA Attorney

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Queer youth and prison violence.



The Nation / Daniel Redman / June 21, 2010


Over the phone, Krystal has a calm and lilting Southern accent. She identifies as a woman now, but when she entered Louisiana's juvenile justice system at 12 years of age, she presented herself as a boy and used male pronouns. Today, she's 18 and was just recently released from the system. Being closeted about her gender identity was never an option for her. "It's very obvious with me because of how I walk, talk, the way I do things," she says. And while her sentencing judge had told her that she wouldn't be in prison for long, it was five years before a sympathetic counselor made a formal request for her release. In her letter to the judge, the counselor mentioned in passing that Krystal had confided in her that she was probably transgender, and that she was in a romantic relationship with another boy at the facility. On the voicemail he left in response to the counselor's report, the judge openly laughed and called the recommendation a joke. He said that based on those facts, he would absolutely deny the request for a release hearing. "Many judges in rural Louisiana still conflate sex offenses with sexual orientation and gender identity," says Wesley Ware of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana. It was months before Krystal was finally set free.


Across the United States, the brutal and dysfunctional juvenile justice system sends queer youth to prison in disproportionate numbers, fails to protect them from violence and discrimination while they're inside and to this day condones attempts to turn them straight. Antigay policies aren't just a problem in the Deep South or rural regions. According to Jody Marksamer of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of co-authors of a recent report on LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system, "These things happen in every state."


The road to incarceration begins in pretrial detention, before the youth even meets a judge. Laws and professional standards state that it's appropriate to detain a child before trial only if she might run away or harm someone. Yet for queer youth, these standards are frequently ignored. According to UC Santa Cruz researcher Dr. Angela Irvine, LGBT youth are two times more likely than straight youth to land in a prison cell before adjudication for nonviolent offenses like truancy, running away and prostitution. According to Ilona Picou, executive director of Juvenile Regional Services, Inc., in Louisiana, 50 percent of the gay youth picked up for nonviolent offenses in Louisiana in 2009 were sent to jail to await trial, while less than 10 percent of straight kids were. "Once a child is detained, the judge assumes there's a reason you can't go home," says Dr. Marty Beyer, a juvenile justice specialist. "A kid coming into court wearing handcuffs and shackles versus a kid coming in with his parents—it makes a very different impression."


Once adjudicated and sent to secure care, LGBT youth often face abusive peers. "I was scared to sleep at night because I didn't know if I was going to wake up in the morning," writes one incarcerated youth at Louisiana's Swanson Center for Youth. One 15-year-old who was shuttled back and forth from group homes and secure facilities in Shreveport, New Orleans and Baton Rouge reports that staff did nothing when he reported a rape because he "reported it too late," that he was "whipped with a clothes hanger" for rule violations and that the abuse from staff and other youth was so bad that he tried to kill himself. Two of Krystal's gay friends were raped in prison by other youths. One of them was assaulted so viciously that the injuries required internal stitches. Staff put Krystal's other friend in isolation to protect him from further assault.


Krystal reports that she was physically attacked by other youth nearly every day that she was in the system. Shortly after arriving, Krystal found her shoes in the trash, covered in urine and spit. Frequently, youths attacked Krystal for refusing to perform sex acts. Other queer youth in the facility had similar experiences. "We're all in the same category," she says. And there was nowhere to hide. "It was basically like a big dorm—one big room where everybody sleeps, that's what's going on," Krystal says. "Sometimes you would get sent to lockdown for fighting back, but there's nothing else you can do." Krystal reported the abuse to staff, but "they would just wait till things happened. Sometimes the staff would tell the other youth to stop. Sometimes they wouldn't."


When Krystal was 13 or 14, the bullying and violence became so bad that staff placed her in protective custody, where she remained for a month. But even after what she had experienced, lockdown was so painful that she requested to be returned to the dorm. Sending LGBT victims of violence into isolation, instead of punishing their attackers, is common practice across the country, even though a federal court has held the practice to be unconstitutional and the American Psychological Association opposes it. And once the youth are put on lockdown—whether to punish or to protect—they miss out on crucial educational opportunities. In 2006, a bisexual youth in California petitioned the court to be removed from his facility because staff members had kept him in isolation for twenty-three hours a day. At 20 years old, he had missed so much schooling that he was only halfway to his high school diploma.


Besides using isolation to purportedly protect queer youth, guards also use lockdown as punishment. "We had one kid who wouldn't go to school because he was afraid" of the other youth in the facility, says Wesley Ware. And because he was on the mental health unit, a certain amount of social interaction was required as part of his rehabilitation program. For refusing to leave his cell, he was put on lockdown for noncompliance, and his chances for release diminished yet again.


Often, queer youth face as much hostility from prison guards as they do from peers. When a youth faces bullying or violence from another kid, staff can be reluctant to intervene. "The staff views it as [the kid] deserves it, or he's asking for it—so they don't intervene or they'll egg it on," Ware says. They view it as "good for the kid—gotta teach him and have it beat out of him. Then when the gay kid finally breaks, then he faces the disciplinary consequences."


Guards are often bullies themselves. Krystal reports that staff called her "a disgrace to mankind," a "punk" or "fucking faggot" on a daily basis and threatened her, saying, "I'll beat your fucking ass." When staff called Krystal "faggot" or other names, sometimes she talked back. "Sometimes I would even say, I'm proud to be that," Krystal says. She would receive more tickets for talking back.


There are even reports of staff members sending youths to attack other kids. "When it happened, it was something all the youth knew," Krystal says. "Basically, someone would be left out there in the open." This is not unique to Louisiana. A 16-year-old gay man in Los Angeles interviewed in 2008 reported that staff members used other youth to intimidate him. Another child in the California system reported that "a female staff member set up a bisexual youth and let straight guys into his room to beat him up. I woke up and saw blood on the walls and on the ground."


LGBT kids are often targeted for sexual assault. A 2009 Department of Justice report shows that across the country, LGBT youth are twelve times more likely than straight youth to report being sexually assaulted by a fellow inmate. In Louisiana alone, 10 percent of all youth—gay and straight—reported abuse by a staff member. Krystal reports that she was propositioned twice by guards when she was 14. When she refused, she was verbally abused and called a "bitch."


An LGBT youth's problems with the law frequently begin at home. "LGBT youth are more likely to be arrested than straight youth because they're more likely to be pushed out of their homes," says Dr. Beyer. And "family rejection is a direct pipeline to the juvenile justice system," says San Francisco State University researcher Caitlin Ryan of the Family Acceptance Project. While only 3-10 percent of Americans are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, LGBT youth make up 15 percent of the prison population. Indeed, one-quarter of all LGBT youth are kicked out of their homes or run away. Compared to their heterosexual peers, incarcerated LGBT youth are twice as likely to report abuse at the hands of family members, homelessness or state-ordered foster placement. A shocking estimated 20-40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT.


Courts and law enforcement officials often fail to recognize the factors that drive LGBT youth into the system. Of a 16-year-old client who was a runaway, Picou says, "Everybody refused to allow him to be in a group home or foster care home. He was in super-custody like he's a terrorist. Nobody asked him why he ran away or whether he was prostituting to stay alive." And while a toxic home life leads LGBT youth to live on the street, an unwelcoming school system leads many to avoid school altogether, leading to truancy.


Until 2007, gay and gender non-conforming youth in Louisiana's juvenile justice system were regularly subjected to "sexual identity confusion" counseling. At 14, Krystal went through this process herself. Though she emphasized again and again that she was not confused and had no desire to change her sexuality or gender identity, counselors grilled her for five sessions. Remarks ranged from emotional appeals ("This is not who you are; I don't want you to be like that") to psychobabble ("Maybe you like boys because you're around them so much") to veiled threats ("You're making a distraction in the unit; while you're here, this is how you need to act because it's drawing attention to you"). For other kids, these threats translated into consequences. One feminine gay youth was sent to lockdown for having his hair up. When a male-to-female transgender youth wished to use a female name and pronouns, the counselors refused and advised staff to force her to wear male clothing.


More blatant and brutal antigay conversion efforts have taken place across the country. In an East Coast state that's the subject of an ongoing investigation, prison authorities permit religious volunteers to enter a youth facility to lead explicitly antigay Bible classes. Lesbian youths who refuse to attend the programs have had their sentences extended from nine to upwards of thirteen months. In Mississippi, a judge—with parental approval—sent a lesbian youth to a private hospital for two weeks to cure her homosexuality. In Pennsylvania, a counselor handed out antigay religious tracts to youth in her facility. In Georgia, when a child who had never committed a sexual offense came out as transgender, she was sent to a facility for youth likely to commit sexual offenses against children. Every major mental health, pediatrics or child welfare organization strongly condemns these practices.


The courts have not been silent on this issue. In 2006, in a stunning, first-of-its-kind decision, a federal court in Hawaii held that the facility's "relentless campaign of violence, physical and sexual assault, imposed social isolation and near constant use of homophobic slurs" was unconstitutional. The children who were plaintiffs in that case faced discriminatory and cruel treatment very similar to what Krystal and others have faced. This decision spurred advocates in California, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere to push for reform—with some success.


In the aftermath of the ruling, the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility implemented mandatory training for the entire staff. The experience is instructive for other juvenile justice systems. "There were certain individuals sitting there with arms folded and steam coming out of their ears. They weren't about to have their opinions changed on the okayness of being LGBT," says Dr. Robert Bidwell, a pediatrician who assisted with the training and works at HYCF. The crucial difference, says Bidwell, is that "the training empowered the people who never felt comfortable with that prejudice to hear loud and clear from the director of youth services that this will not be tolerated."


To be sure, even in the worst facilities, gay youth can often find some allies. Krystal told me how in the midst of the terror she experienced, the women who taught school in the facility "were basically another momma to me." One staff member who physically attacked Krystal was ultimately investigated and fired. But at the root of this problem, says Jody Marksamer, is a cold truth. "In the juvenile justice world, even when staff members believe something poses a litigation risk, they'll keep doing it until somebody inside tells them we have to stop doing it, or they get sued."

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

BAN AZ Legislative Update Jan 2011

Boarder Action Network
Legislative Update: January 17-21, 2011
By Jaime Farrant, Policy Director


I. Introduction: Governor Brewer Files a Budget that puts Arizona on the Verge of a Public Health and Moral Crisis



Governor Brewer announced her proposed budget for Arizona last Jan. 14. The budget dominated this week’s political discussion, given our state’s current financial situation: depending on the estimate, Arizona’s deficit ranges between 1 and 2 billion dollars. However, instead of proposing a budget that considers all available options to save costs and raise revenues for the state, the Arizona Capitol Times described it as one that “hinges on empathy from the federal government, surviving potential lawsuits and a $330 million accounting gimmick that may not be legal”. Governor Brewer’s main plan to reduce government spending is a $561 million cut to AHCCCS, the state’s health insurance program for the poor. The cuts will end coverage for approximately 280,000 people, most of them childless adults, parents of eligible children and elderly, blind and disabled patients. The Governor also proposed a $170 million cut to the university system. However, not all agencies suffered cuts. Governor Brewer requested $8.4 million to hire 100 new correctional officers this year, to be followed by 200 more over the next two years. She also requested a $50 million bond to cover needs at the state's 10 prison complexes.

Speaking of budget cuts, Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Dist. 5) stated to the Arizona Guardian that these will send the message that “we’ve got to preach to people to save up for their colonoscopy, to save up for their welfare visits, to put some money back into their lives and their own responsibilities for healthcare”. The Arizona Guardian also asked Senate President Russell Pearce whether it was realistic for low-income people to save the money necessary for doctor visits and exams. His response was simply "that's the way it used to be."

Read More...

II. Summary of Legislative Bills Filed and Discussed This Week

This was another busy week at the Legislature, with over 350 bills filed. As of the end of Thursday’s session, there are 756 bills before the 2 legislative bodies. Many of them will have a direct impact on Arizonans’ human rights, and on the direction this state takes. The following is a summary of several of these measures, with Border Action’s observations on them.

A. Measures Impacting Civil and Constitutional Rights and Public Justice

Some of the measures filed this week that impact civil and constitutional rights and our public justice system include:

1. HB 2444: Law Enforcement Officer Discipline. Rep. Steve Montenegro, R- Dist. 12. This measure prohibits filing disciplinary procedures against law enforcement officers if the investigation is not completed within 120 days after the employer received notice of the allegation. If disciplinary action is appropriate, the employer must give notice to the officer of intent to proceed with disciplinary action, along with a proposal of the specific action sought. The bill prohibits polygraph examinations in administrative procedures unless the law enforcement or probation officer and the employer agree to its administration. This measure has the effect of making it more difficult to hold law enforcement officers for inappropriate acts.

Read More…

B. Measures Impacting a Secure and Productive Border and Immigration Issues

On Thursday, January 20, the Senate’s Committee on Border Security, Federalism and States’ Sovereignty (chaired by Sylvia Allen, R-Dist. 5) held its first hearing. It began with Sen. Allen introducing the members, and then, by asking Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever and Pinal County Paul Babeu to speak about their county’s law enforcement efforts. 

Sheriff Dever talked for almost 1 hour. He stated that, as a way to resolve immigration issues, “until they (referring to the undocumented) aren’t incarcerated for a long period of time, they’ll continue to come back”. He also declared that there are delegations across the country ready to file bills similar to SB 1070, and that if the federal government “thinks that this is going to die, they are incorrect”. He said that he is interested to see if the Department of Justice will sue other states that pass Arizona-inspired laws. 

Senator Allen asked Sheriff Dever if he would like for the legislature to pass a law that would create a border security voluntary group that would provide him “with more bodies to help”. He responded that if that was ever to happen, that “he would like to see them under the supervision of the sheriff.” He also criticized Border Patrol’s efforts, because they are “scattered and not holding the frontline”, and because of their policy of measuring success by their number of apprehensions, saying “that’s measuring how many fish are in the lake by the number of fish you catch”.

Read More…



1. HB 2537: Immigration Legislation Challenges. Rep. Kirk Adams, R-Dist. 19. This is the House version of SB 1117, which seeks to amend last year’s HB 2162 (passed to amend SB 1070) and authorize the Senate President or House Speaker to direct counsel to initiate legal proceedings or appear on behalf of their respective chambers or on behalf of the legislature in any challenge in a state or federal court to SB 1070 and any amendments to it. Border Action Network spoke at the Senate last week opposing SB 1117, questioning the need of a measure that grants a blank check to these 2 persons to spend taxpayer monies during these difficult economic times.

Read More...

C. Measures Impacting Employment and Workers Rights

1. HB 2263: Discrimination; Enforcement; Damages. Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Dist. 17. This bill seeks to increase the statute of limitations on filing employment discrimination charges to 2 years from 1 year. It also allows the recovering party in unlawful employment practice cases to recover punitive or compensatory damages under certain conditions. This is a positive measure that will help Arizona workers who are discriminated against.


2. HB 2271: Employment; Unlawful Termination; Family Responsibility. Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Dist. 17 (pictured right). This measure prohibits employers from firing or threaten to fire an employee for being notified by a school or law enforcement officer of an emergency regarding the employee's child or for leaving work to attend to the child's emergency, except in cases of excessive abuse of this protection.


3. HB 2367: Public Employees; Prohibited Negotiations. Rep. David Smith, R-Dist. 7. This measure prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from negotiating with a labor organization or employee association representing public employees about employee wages and benefits, hours of work, or other financial issues. This is a bill that seeks to further diminish labor unions’ ability to negotiate on behalf of their members in our state.


Read More…

D. Measures Impacting Education

1. HB 2505 – School pupils; lawful status; state aid. Rep. Carl Seel, R-Dist. 6; Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Dist. 18. This measure prohibits school districts and charter schools from counting children whose parents are unable to prove the child’s lawful presence in the US for purposes of determining average daily membership, the measure used to determine state funding to school districts and charter schools. This bill has the intent of forcing schools to turn away undocumented children from their schools, and an attempt to force a lawsuit to challenge the Supreme Court Decision of Plyler v. Doe, which established that all children in this country are entitled to a free public education.

Read More...

E. Measures Impacting Integration and Civic Participation

Representative Carl Seel (R-Dist 6, pictured left), filed various bills this week that attempt to eliminate the advances made by various groups throughout AZ during last year’s elections to increase voter participation, by making it harder for Arizonans to register to vote and by creating mechanisms to deter organizations from assisting in voter registration efforts. These measures are:

1. HB 2240: Voter Registration; Assistance; Notary. Mandates that voter registration forms include a space for the registrant to provide the name of any person who assisted the registrant, including the name of that person's organization, if any. It also establishes that the signature of the voter in permanent early voter request forms (“PEVL”) be notarized by a notary public. Voters already on the permanent early voting list must submit a notarized renewal within 2 years or their name will be removed. The paper record provided by an electronic voting system must be used in manual audits and recounts on electronic equipment that uses a touch screen system or that is usable with assistive devices.

Read More…

F. Measures Impacting Health Care

While we have a budget that seeks to cut health care services to over 280,000 persons, several other bills were filed this week that will impact health care in our state. These are:

1. SB 1214: Interstate Compact; Health Care. Sen. Silvia Allen R, Dist. 5 (pictured right). This measure seeks to create an inter-state agreement to aggressively oppose President Obama’s health care reform law signed in Congress last year. SB 1214 seeks to:


a. Prohibit governmental agencies from depriving any resident of any party of any party state of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under their respective current or anticipated health care freedom laws.


b. Prohibit government agencies from penalizing residents of these states.


c. Allow cooperation between signatory states that will allow criminal prosecutions of anyone who violates the health care freedom criminal laws of any party state. The measure defines these “health care freedom criminal laws” as any state law that makes it a crime for anyone to interfere with a resident’s enjoyment of the freedoms protected and guaranteed obey the state’s respective health care freedom laws”. These freedom laws, in turn, are laws by which persons’ have the “freedom to pay or not to pay directly for lawful health care services and to participate or not to participate in health care plans and health care systems.”


Read More…

G. Measures Impacting Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development

There were several measures filed this week that should concern all of Arizona’s residents, particularly as our state struggles to correct its financial situation. They are:

1. SB 1210: Corporate Income Tax; Repeal. First Sponsor Sen. Lori Klein, R-Dist.6. This measure seeks to eliminate Arizona’s Revised Statutes (“ARS”) Chapter on Corporate Taxes effective December 31, 2011. It also instructs legislative council staff to prepare new legislation on this matter. Under this measure, Arizona’s corporations would not pay any income tax until a new corporate tax code is filed. Considering our state’s financial situation, this is an irresponsible measure that must be rejected.


Read More…

Want to stay informed as the Legislative Session continues? If you haven't already, click here to sign up for Border Action's AZ Legislative Updates!