Big Court Victory in California!



[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: COURT DECLARES CALIFORNIA’S GENDER QUOTA FOR
CORPORATE BOARDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[[link removed]]

In a historic victory for the rule of a law, a California court found
California’s gender quota law for corporate boards unconstitutional.
The verdict comes after a 28-day trial (_Robin Crest et al. v. Alex
Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(Case No. 19STCV27561)).

This verdict follows a similar ruling
[[link removed]]
in our favor last month that found California’s diversity mandate
for corporate boards unconstitutional.

We filed the gender quota lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019 on behalf of California
taxpayers Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit
challenged a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which required every
publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least
one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its
board of directors by December 31, 2019.

The law also required corporations to have up to three such persons on
their boards by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board.
We argued
[[link removed]]
that the quota for women on corporate boards violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed with us and
“determine[d] that SB 826 violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the California Constitution and is thus enjoined.”

In the court’s 23-page verdict
[[link removed]],
it specifically found that “S.B. 826’s goal was to achieve general
equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California’s economy,
not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to
protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and
retirees.” Further, the court found that “putting more women on
boards demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was
gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination…” And, “[t]here
is no Compelling Governmental interest in remedying discrimination in
the board selection process because neither the Legislature nor
Defendant could identify any specific, purposeful, intentional and
unlawful discrimination to be remedied,” Judge Duffy-Lewis wrote.

The court also found that California had “offered the testimony of
the stereotypical virtues of women such as “consensus builders”
and “less risky behavior in investments…. The Court is unpersuaded
by this offer of stereotypes for a justification of S.B. 826.” The
court also found that Judicial Watch attorneys presented persuasive
evidence in “ILLEGALITY OF ACTIVITY” (emphasis original) in the
implementation of the gender quota mandate.

The court eviscerated California’s unconstitutional gender quota
mandate. This is the second California court decision finding that
quotas for corporate boards are unconstitutional. The radical Left’s
unprecedented attacks on anti-discrimination law has suffered another
stinging defeat.

Thankfully, California courts have upheld the core American value of
equal protection under the law. Our taxpayer clients are heroes for
standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts
to undo anti-discrimination protections. We have helped protect the
civil rights of every American with these successful lawsuits.

JUDICIAL WATCH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AGAINST CHICAGO’S LIGHTFOOT
DISMISSED AFTER MAYOR ENDS HER RACIST INTERVIEW POLICY

We struck a blow against leftist racial discrimination in Chicago.

Our federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News
Foundation and reporter Thomas Catenacci against Chicago Mayor Lori
Lightfoot was dismissed after Lightfoot said she will not limit
one-on-one interviews to “journalists of color” in the future
(_Catenacci et al v. Lightfoot_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-02852)).

In dismissing the case, our attorneys noted:

As testified to by her Communications Director and as stated in her
motion to dismiss, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has no plans or intentions in
the future to exclusively provide one-on-one interviews with
journalists of color.
We filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against Lightfoot
on May 27, 2021, after Catenacci, a white journalist, emailed
Lightfoot’s office requesting a one-on-one interview with the mayor.
The mayor’s office never replied to the request or to two additional
follow-up emails from Catenacci. Catenacci’s request came on one of
the days that the mayor admittedly was discriminating against
journalists based on race.

On May 18, 2021, Lightfoot’s office informed multiple reporters that
she would grant one-on-one interviews “only to Black or Brown
Journalists
[[link removed]
The next day, the mayor released a letter
[[link removed]]
confirming her discriminatory policy. Our lawsuit alleged that
Lightfoot’s refusal to be interviewed by Catenacci was a violation
of the Daily Caller News Foundation’s and his First Amendment rights
and Catenacci’s right to equal protection.

On July 26, 2021, after the lawsuit was filed, Mayor Lightfoot told
_The New York Times_
[[link removed]]
that she would “absolutely” engage in racial discrimination again.
When pressed on the issue by our attorneys, her spokesperson testified
[[link removed]]
under oath in this lawsuit that Lightfoot promised not to engage in
any more of this type of racial discrimination:

Q Okay. Have you spoken to the Mayor about whether she intends to
exclusively provide one-on-one interviews with journalists of color in
the future?

A Yes.

Q Okay. What did the Mayor tell you about that?

A She does not have plans to do so.

Q Does she intend to do so?

A No.
Mayor Lightfoot’s attorneys also told
[[link removed]]
the Court the same thing in their most recent filing.

“I’m glad that Mayor Lightfoot finally realized that her racist
policy was untenable. I hope all elected officials take note of our
case and think twice before issuing similar policies,” Thomas
Catenacci said.

“It’s amazing and sad that we had to do this in America 2022. A
government official discriminating based on race is as wrong as it
gets. We are relieved that she finally relented,” Daily Caller News
Foundation President Neil Patel said.

It is incredible, in this day and age, that it took a federal civil
rights lawsuit to force Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to retreat from
her racial discrimination against reporters.

CENSUS BUREAU KEEPS HIRING ‘UNSUITABLE INDIVIDUALS’ WITH CRIMINAL
RECORDS

The federal government apparently has no interest in protecting you
from felons it hires to conduct the census. Our _Corruption
Chronicles_ blog explains
[[link removed]]
why the American people should be concerned about who is working at
the U.S. Census Bureau:

Thirteen years after a federal investigation
[[link removed]]
blasted the U.S. Census
Bureau for hiring criminals to enter American homes to gather
statistics for the decennial count, a new audit
[[link removed]]
reveals the disturbing practice continues. In fact, more than a decade
after the problem was exposed workers for the 2020 count were not
properly vetted and many with criminal records had direct interactions
with the public. The most recent probe, conducted by the Department of
Commerce Inspector General, found that “dozens of employees who
worked on address canvassing in advance of the 2020 census had major
issues flagged on their investigations, which typically means
employees are automatically disqualified from their federal jobs.”

Chunks of the 28-page report are redacted but the gist is well
conveyed, that the Census Bureau has long failed to screen its
workforce and therefore endangers the public. It’s not like there
isn’t a vetting system in place. When one of the 248 regional
offices recruit a candidate, the Census Investigative Services (CIS)
at the agency’s headquarters in Suitland, Maryland is charged with
conducting a pre-employment suitability review. The process includes
sending fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
a credit history as well as self-disclosed criminal record to CIS for
review. Nevertheless, the Bureau still hires felons—including sex
offenders—at regional offices nationwide. As an example, a few years
ago the Charlotte, North Carolina Area Census Office (ACO) employed a
man convicted of a felony
[[link removed]]
involving sex with a child as a regional recruiting manager because
despite his criminal record, he passed the Census Bureau’s
background check.

The Bureau’s negligent security practices have been on the radar of
federal lawmakers for years. Over a decade ago, Congressional
investigators slammed the agency for failing to adequately conduct
mandatory background checks for tens of thousands of workers,
resulting in the hiring of hundreds of violent criminals. At the time,
the probe found that more than 35,000 temporary census workers were
employed without the proper criminal background check, which includes
fingerprinting. That means that more than one-fifth of the canvassing
workforce did not get properly processed or fully screened for
employment eligibility, creating an obvious security risk. More than
200 of those were subsequently determined to have criminal records yet
were in constant contact with the public while canvassing for the 2010
census. Investigators said the criminal record checks were bungled
because the Census Bureau’s incompetent staff was poorly trained to
conduct them.

Twelve years ago Judicial Watch reported
[[link removed]]
that the Census Bureau knowingly hired a registered sex offender with
a long criminal history to make home visits even though such convicts
are banned from working for the agency. The embarrassing gaffe came to
light when a young mother in a New Jersey suburb recognized the census
worker who came to her home from the state’s registered sex offender
database. She initially thought it was safe to provide the man with
information because he was a legitimate government worker with a badge
and bag sporting the U.S. Census Bureau’s official logo. Incredibly,
the sex offender used a fake name to get the census job but failed a
fingerprint check after getting hired. The agency still let him to
complete four days of training and allowed him to visit homes even
though he did not pass the background check.

The latest audit, released last week, shows that virtually nothing has
changed after all these years and that the Bureau has done little to
improve its derelict hiring practices. Investigators found that at
least 6,802 census workers were not properly adjudicated, “resulting
in persons with significant issues working for the Bureau and, in some
instances, contacting households during the 2020 Census NRFU
[Nonresponse Followup] operation.” In cases when CIS adjudicators
actually vetted employees, the watchdog found that they often failed
to request necessary documentation to assess the severity of the
issues raised. Stressing that background checks are a critical process
to help protect the nation’s interests by establishing trust in the
federal workforce, the IG points out the obvious in its recent report:
“The lack of oversight increases the risk of unknowingly allowing
unsuitable individuals into positions of public trust, which could
cause harm to the bureau.”

HISTORIC JUDICIAL WATCH GERRYMANDER WIN COULD SET NATIONAL PRECEDENT

There is more than one way to rig elections, including gerrymandering
– which is state legislatures creating congressional districts that
all but guarantee nakedly partisan results irrespective of voter
wishes. Judicial Watch is on the front line – and winning –
against this abuse of power. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, provides an overview
[[link removed]]
in the _Investigative Bulletin_.

The judge was not pulling any punches. Siding with Judicial Watch in a
challenge to a congressional redistricting plan cooked up by Democrats
dominating the Maryland state legislature, Judge Lynne
Battaglia—herself a Democrat—threw haymakers. The Democrat
redistricting map was an “extreme partisan gerrymander.” Democrats
had attempted to “suppress the voice of Republican voters.” It was
drawn up with “partisanship as predominant intent.” It violated
state constitutional provisions on equal protection and free speech.
It subordinated “constitutional criteria to political
consideration.”

It was out. Making history—for the first time, a Maryland court
ruled that a congressional redistricting plan violated the state
constitution—Judge Battaglia banned the use of the gerrymander map
and ordered the Maryland General Assembly back to the drawing board.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton hailed the decision. “This key
court victory against abusive partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in
Maryland could set a national precedent,” he said. Maryland Governor
Larry Hogan called it “an historic milestone.” Judicial Watch
filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf
of twelve Maryland voters who objected to the state legislature’s
plan and was joined at trial by a second set of plaintiffs. The
argument? The gerrymandered maps diminished their right to participate
in a free and fair election on an equal basis with other Maryland
voters. The court agreed
[[link removed]].


The March ruling has begun to echo through the national debate. In New
York, in April, the state’s highest court rejected a new
redistricting map favored by Democrats dominating state politics. The
court ruled that the map violated a state prohibition on partisan
gerrymandering, saying it was created with “impermissible partisan
purpose.” Court observers say the Maryland case was discussed in
briefings and oral arguments in New York.

In 2019, the Supreme Court rejected political gerrymandering claims
brought solely under the federal Constitution. Since then, the battle
over redistricting has spread to state courts throughout the country.
According to experts surveyed by Judicial Watch, cases related to
gerrymandering and redistricting are underway in nineteen states.
Among the states are the electoral powerhouses Texas, Florida,
Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. You can read about some of the
upcoming cases here
[[link removed]].


Tough anti-gerrymandering measures are one way to start cleaning up
dirty election practices, says Robert Popper, Judicial Watch’s
director of voting integrity efforts. Gerrymandering is a “method of
cheating [that] has been around for 200 years,” Popper told
[[link removed]]
journalist Tim Pool. “If you’re a state that doesn’t have an
anti-gerrymandering provision, then suddenly it’s a political issue.
Why don’t you? You want districts that are ugly and screwed up for
partisan advantage, you want to cheat opponents in state elections.”


In Maryland, the state legislature quickly capitulated in the face of
the court ruling and signed on to a new, fairer redistricting map. In
New York, redistricting has been turned over to a special master. But
Popper warns of trouble in states where political gerrymandering
survives, with partisan operatives possibly turning to “new,
computer-generated maps” that could become “so convoluted that’s
it’s effectively like you don’t have a district at all.” We’re
not there yet, says Popper. “But if we don’t deal with
gerrymandering, my prediction is, that’s coming.”
Until next week...





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]