Judicial Watch Victory: Court Declares
California’s Gender Quota for Corporate Boards
Unconstitutional
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 (Case No. 19STCV27561)).
This verdict follows a similar
ruling in our favor last month that found California’s diversity
mandate for corporate boards unconstitutional.
We filed the gender quota lawsuit
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
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,
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 (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
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.” The next day, the mayor released a letter
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 that she would “absolutely” engage in racial
discrimination again. When pressed on the issue by our attorneys, her
spokesperson testified
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
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
why the American people should be concerned about who is working at the
U.S. Census Bureau:
Thirteen years after a federal
investigation blasted the U.S. Census Bureau for hiring criminals to
enter American homes to gather statistics for the decennial count, a new audit
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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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...
|
