The Islamic Society of Tulsa held a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day in 2011 to thank local police for protecting the center after it received threats during the previous year. As part of the department’s community policing initiative, Capt. Paul Fields was directed to attend, or send officers from his division to attend the event. Fields refused, claiming that to attend or to send officers to the event would violate his religious beliefs, which require him to proselytize anyone who does not share his Christian faith.

“As a police officer, Capt. Fields is bound to serve the entire community, regardless of whether or not they share his beliefs,” said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “His refusal to attend an event hosted by members of the community because they happen to be Muslims is discrimination, pure and simple.”

The brief states that the First Amendment requires public servants to serve all individuals and groups of every religious tradition without discriminating against or favoring any particular faith.

The brief notes that Fields’ claim would allow him to, for example, refuse to guard a Sikh temple that has been targeted for violence, provide a police presence at a war protest organized by religious groups and featuring speakers of any non-Christian faith, give a presentation on safety and crime prevention to students at a Catholic school, conduct foot patrols of a neighborhood with a large Orthodox Jewish population, or come to the aid of an injured woman wearing a hijab.

“Capt. Fields is certainly entitled to his own, deeply held beliefs, but while on duty, he simply has no right to ignore or abandon those of other faiths,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “The idea that an officer can pick and choose whom he will assist based on what they believe strikes at the heart of our most cherished constitutional values of religious liberty and equality.”

The community event was described as a “casual come and go atmosphere” with a buffet of “American and Ethnic foods” and optional tours of the mosque and an opportunity to observe a prayer service. Officers were not required, however, to participate in any of these activities or even be on site during the prayer service.

The Tulsa Police Department regularly attends community outreach events hosted by religious organizations or held at religious venues of various faiths.

A copy of the brief can be seen at:

aclu.org/religion-belief/fields-v-city-tulsa-amicus-brief

“By their own admission, the proponents of this initiative aim to strip women and families of their established right to decide whether and when to become pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term,” said Ryan Kiesel, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “This initiative insults Oklahoma women’s intelligence and dignity by denying access to basic health services.” If passed, the initiative would outlaw many critical reproductive health services, including all abortion care, commonly used forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization and treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

“It’s been nearly four decades since the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to safe, legal abortion services,” said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Yet state legislatures continue to attack that right through dangerous, outrageous initiatives such as this one. This is unacceptable. We must respect a woman’s capacity to make private, personal decisions about her reproductive health with her doctor and her family.” More information on this case can be found at: www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/re-initiative-petition-no-395-state-question-no-761-or-oklahoma-personhood

Are all faiths equal under the law? Does the fundamental right to worship in this country depend on approval of the majority? These questions lie at the heart of a legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations to Oklahoma’s “Save Our State Amendment,” which bars state courts from applying — or even considering — Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”

Last November, the federal district court rejected this attempt to use the state constitution to condone bigotry and blocked the amendment from taking effect. Yesterday, a federal appellate court in Denver heard arguments in the state’s appeal of that decision, but the state should fare no better this time around.

Click Here to Read the Entire Post at the ACLU’s Blog of Rights

ACLU of Oklahoma and CAIR to Ask Appeals Court Monday to Uphold Ruling Blocking Implementation of Oklahoma Ban on Sharia and International Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2011
CONTACT:
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU national, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
DENVER – Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will present arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Monday, September 12 at 1:00 p.m. MDT to ask that the court uphold a ruling blocking implementation of a discriminatory and unnecessary Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that prohibits courts from applying – or even considering – what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”

The measure, officially titled the “Save Our State Amendment,” was temporarily enjoined last year by a lower court for blatantly disfavoring an entire faith and denyingOklahoma’s Muslims access to the judicial system on the same terms as every other citizen. The ACLU and CAIR are seeking to have the amendment permanently struck down.

More information on the case is available at: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/muneer-awad-v-paul-ziriax-oklahoma-state-board-elections-et-al

WHAT:
Arguments in appeal of lower court ruling blocking implementation of anOklahoma state constitutional amendment prohibiting courts from applying or considering Sharia law and international law.

WHO:
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief; Micheal Salem, cooperating counsel from Salem Law Offices, who will be presenting arguments; and Muneer Awad, Executive Director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter and plaintiff in the case will be in attendance and available to speak to reporters.

WHEN:
Monday, September 12, 2011
1:00 p.m. MDT

WHERE:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver,Colo.

The legal team prepares to file a challenge to the OCRI Ballot Initiative with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Oklahoma voters filed a protest on March 7, 2008 before the state Supreme Court challenging irregularities and questionable practices in the collection of signatures by the so-called Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative. The initiative is one of a series of ballot measures that California businessman Ward Connerly and his organization known as the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) have spearheaded across the country.

“When equal opportunity and the civil rights of our residents are at stake, it is critically important that the electoral process is fair, transparent and honest,” said Chuck Thornton, Legal Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “We are confident that this review will confirm what has already been discovered – the signature-gathering process was riddled with errors.”

The legal challenge follows the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s certification of the ballot measure’s signatures and Monday’s publication of the signatures’ alleged sufficiency by Secretary of State M. Susan Savage. Last month, Savage noted in a letter to the court that the signature count “has resulted in an unprecedented situation where large numbers of duplicate names and addresses were discovered well into the signature counting process….[and] it is a reasonable assumption that not all duplicates have been discovered.” Savage also noted that her report to the court took much more time to compile than usual “due to the scope and number of irregularities noted among the signature pages.” Among the irregularities Savage noted were numerous instances of circulators signing their own petitions multiple times.

The team in the OCRI petition challenge includes Smita Ghosh, Tamya Cox (front row) Andre Segura, Marc Battle & C.S. Thornton (back row).

If this measure – initiated and funded by California-based interests – appears on the ballot, it would threaten access to equal opportunity for countless Oklahomans. Connerly’s similar ballot initiative in California dramatically reduced the participation of women and minorities in higher education, contracting, and employment. After it passed in 1996, the number of women employed in California’s construction industry declined by 33 percent. The number of minority businesses in the state’s transportation construction industry declined even more sharply, with just a third of such enterprises in existence in 1996 still in business by 2006.

“It is well known that Connerly and his front groups have repeatedly misappropriated the language of the civil rights movement to trick voters into ending equal opportunity programs in states across the country. But we the voters of Oklahoma must not be fooled,” said State Representative Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City. “Although we are strongly opposed to the content of this ballot measure, today’s challenge is about protecting the integrity of the electoral process in the state of Oklahoma.”

In addition to Representative Shelton, individuals bringing this challenge include Representative Jabar Shumate, Fannie Bates, Randall T. Coyne, Bob Darcy, Bernadette Huber, Rey Madrid, Bernice Mitchell, Earl D. Mitchell, Jr., and Juanita Vasquez Sykes.

Recently, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson revised the ballot measure’s title to make clear to voters that Connerly’s initiative threatens to dismantle affirmative action programs in the state. Nationwide, courts have repeatedly recognized that the intent of these initiatives is to eliminate programs that promote equal access and opportunities for women and minorities. Reports indicate that ACRI has used misleading practices in nearly every state in which it has introduced initiatives.

Haskell County Ten Commandments Monument

The appeal of a 2006 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to retain a Ten Commandments monument on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver Colorado on October 4, 2007. Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the National ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, presented the oral argument to the Tenth Circuit. He was advised by Micheal Salem, an ACLU of Oklahoma cooperating attorney who handled the case at the District Court trial with former ACLU of Oklahoma Staff Attorney Tina Izadi.

The ACLU of Oklahoma originally filed the case on behalf of plaintiff James W. Green, who objected to the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler, Oklahoma. Stigler resident Sharon Nichols acted as the representative on behalf of the ACLU of Oklahoma membership. The judge at the District Court dismissed the controversy as a “kerfuffle” and ruled that the monument was not erected by the County with a religious purpose. The case is Green v. Board of Commissioners of the County of Haskell.

Chloe Smith

During a classroom sweep, drug dogs allegedly alerted school officials that Smith’s coat contained contraband. A search ensued, and the prescription medication was discovered in her purse.

As a result of her mistake, Smith and her parents were informed that two disciplinary options were available. She could choose to be suspended for the remainder of the school year, or she could opt to receive a ten-day suspension accompanied by 8 hours of drug counseling and monthly, random urinalysis. The family would be required to shoulder the expense of the counseling and drug testing.

This draconian discipline for a relatively minor infraction concerning prescription drugs was justified by Mustang school administrators as being mandated by a district-wide zero-tolerance policy. Smith’s mother believed that the punishment was excessive, and she contacted the ACLU of Oklahoma.

Staff Attorney Tina Izadi represented Smith in negotiations with the Mustang School District and at an administrative appeal hearing. Smith was returned to the classroom after five days of suspension pending the hearing.

At the hearing, Izadi convinced the appeal panel to reduce the discipline to the five days of suspension that Smith had already served. In addition, no drug counseling or random urinalysis would be required.

Due to concerns about Smith’s permanent academic record and the overzealousness of administrators in the matter, Izadi filed an appeal with the Mustang Board of Education. Izadi’s examination of the district’s policy indicated that it did not have a zero-tolerance mandate in place and that officials had discretion in their enforcement options.

The Mustang School District and the ACLU reached an agreement through negotiation before the appeal was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Education. As a result, Smith’s student record was expunged of the disciplinary record and any references to her medical condition. In addition, the school recognized that it did not have a zero tolerance policy. Furthermore, the district agreed to conduct in-service training for administrators to insure that the policy is not implemented as such. Finally, the district agreed to insure that private contractors operating on school premises would not operate outside constitutional parameters in their use of drug dogs.

“When Ward Connerly rolled the dice by filing his ill-conceived petition, he gambled with not only his funds but also Oklahoma taxpayer dollars,” said Chuck Thornton, ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director.

Oklahoma is one of five states, along with Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska, currently targeted by Connerly and his ACRI. The deceptively worded initiatives claim to end “discrimination” and “preferences,” but have been cited as the basis for rolling back a wide range of affirmative action programs in each state where they have been adopted. The ACRI has been accused of deliberately misleading voters in every state where it has campaigned, including a year-and-a-half year ago in Michigan, where a federal court found the organization had engaged in voter fraud.

“The hope is that this is the beginning of the end of Mr. Connerly’s flawed campaign,” said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF). “The attempts by supporters of this initiative to manipulate the democratic process never garnered support from the people of Oklahoma, who have instead stood up to defend access to equal opportunity for all.”

“The most recent developments in Oklahoma only lend further legitimacy to the widespread concerns that have been raised about the tactics used by Connerly in each of the states he has targeted,” said Reginald T. Shuford, ACLU Racial Justice Program Senior Staff Attorney. “The efforts of Connerly and the ACRI are an affront to the ideals they claim to support, and my hope is that this is only the first of a string of victories on behalf of the many Americans who believe so strongly in equality and equal opportunity.”

The withdrawal follows a lawsuit challenging the proposal by the ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma, LDF, ACLU Racial Justice Program, and the ACLU
Women’s Rights Project, which raised deep concerns about the signature-gathering process and the constitutionality of the ballot petition itself.

“Secretary of State Susan Savage found numerous irregularities in the signature-gathering process,” said Thornton. “We continue to find such deficiencies in our on-the-ground investigation, consistent with the beliefs of OCRI’s own backers that its petition is defective and should be withdrawn.”

The ACLU challenged the enforcement and constitutionality of sex offender residential restrictions in Tulsa on behalf of four unidentified men and one unidentified woman. As registered sex offenders, they challenged revised state statutes that would have rendered almost all of Tulsa off-limits for them to live, work, attend church or travel. Defendants in the case included officials with the Department of Corrections, Governor Brad Henry, Attorney General Drew Edmondson, the Tulsa County District Attorney, the Tulsa County Sheriff and the Tulsa Police Chief.

Legislation enacted during the 2006 session of the Oklahoma Legislature mandated a “zone of safety” around elementary, junior high and high schools; licensed child care facilities; playgrounds; and parks. The revision in state law prohibited any person subject to the sex offender registry from being within 300 feet of a “zone of safety,” severely limited where sex offenders could live and established punishments. Although several of the plaintiffs had resided in their homes for a substantial number of years, they were informed during 2006 for the first time that they were in violation of the “zone of safety” and were required to move or would face arrest and prosecution for a felony.

Various problems with the new restrictions were addressed by the lawsuit. The complaint in the case asserted that only a small percentage of urban areas in the state would be available for the plaintiffs to live, work or travel. In addition, locating available rural housing that was permissible under the law would be difficult, if not impossible, for the plaintiffs. Many people on the sex offender registry would be forced to sleep on the streets, in their cars, in tents or in trailers in the woods.

The statutes in question applied to everyone subject to the sex offender registry without any exceptions due to illness, advanced age, financial hardship or disability. Furthermore, the statutes did not provide for an individualized determination to distinguish between people on the registry who were dangerous and those who were not. By imposing punishment without an individualized showing of dangerousness or opportunity for an exemption, the statutes deprived the plaintiffs of their property and livelihood without due process of law.

Following the filing of the Doe v. Parish lawsuit, the Oklahoma Legislature further revised the sex offender residential restrictions during its 2007 session. The amended restrictions provided more discretion to the defendants in enforcement and would not make it virtually impossible for sex offenders to find places to live. Therefore, the ACLU’s clients in the litigation were not forced to move, and the plaintiffs agreed with the defendants to dismiss the case.

John Doe, the ACLU’s anonymous client in the lawsuit, challenged the enforcement of residential restrictions for sex offenders. His identity was protected by an order of the Court issued on January 27, 2006.

The Oklahoma City Police Department was attempting to unfairly enforce a state law that prohibited registered sex offenders from residing within a 2,000 feet radius of a school or educational institution. Doe had tried to comply with the regulation and had even sold a house he had purchased after being informed by the Oklahoma City Police Department Registry Division that it was too close to a school and that he would be arrested if he did not move within 60 days.

Doe subsequently bought another house after consulting with the Registry Division, which assured him that could legally reside in that location. Several months later, he was contacted by the Oklahoma City Police Department and told that “new and improved” measuring techniques and “new” legal interpretations indicated that his recently purchased home was also too close to a school.

ACLU of Oklahoma’s former Staff Attorney Tina Izadi filed suit on behalf of Doe on January 26, 2006 and alleged that his due process and other rights were being violated by the police and district attorney’s office. After a court appearance, a temporary restraining order from the Oklahoma County District Court and extensive negotiation, the defendants agreed to settle the case.

Wes Lane, former District Attorney for Oklahoma County, in his official capacity and the District Attorney’s Office for Oklahoma County’s employees, agents and its office agreed to refrain from initiating criminal prosecution to enforce 57 O.S. Section 590 against Doe for the duration of time that Doe remains at his present address, including any and all enforcement steps and/or proceedings and any revocation proceedings as a result of his residence.

William Citty, Chief of Police for City of Oklahoma City, in his official capacity, and The City of Oklahoma City Police Department’s employees, agents and its office agreed to refrain from initiating criminal prosecution to enforce 57 O.S. Section 590 against Plaintiff for the duration of time that Plaintiff remains at his present address, including any and all enforcement steps and/or proceedings.

As part of the settlement, the parties were prohibited from publicly identifying Doe and providing any identifying information about him to any person or entity not directly involved in the resolution and the future enforcement of the agreement in accord with the terms of the Court’s Order granting the Plaintiff’s Protective Order on January 27, 2006.