Northern California School officials required a female student to participate in school-sponsored "counseling" designed to discourage students from being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Officials also denied the student access to the girls' locker room.

"All I ever wanted was to be able to go to school and just be myself. But I couldn't do that when the people I was supposed to be learning from were judging me and telling me something was wrong with me," the girl said. "How was I supposed to learn when I was constantly scared?"

In a public school in Memphis, Tennessee, two male students had their private relationship revealed to the school principal by another student. In response, the principal wrote their names on a list she posted next to her desk, in full view. The principal then called one of their mothers.

"Did you know your son is gay?" the mother said the principal told her. The principal added that she didn't like gay people and wouldn't tolerate homosexuality at her school. Both students reported that they had to endure verbal harassment from teachers and students as a result of the principal's actions.

Orange County, California public high school officials punished a female student, revealed her sexual orientation to her family and forced her to transfer to another school in the middle of the semester. The student, who previously had straight-A grades and a spotless disciplinary record, was punished for occasionally showing affection towards her girlfriend, even though heterosexual students regularly held hands, hugged and kissed on campus.

These examples are not rare instance of discriminatory treatment. Instead, they shed light on the daily challenges faced by many LGBT students.

In a comprehensive 2007 study of 6,209 middle and high school students entitled the National School Climate Survey, nine out of ten LGBT students reported that they had experienced harassment at their school in the past year. Additionally, three-fifths felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and about a third reported that they had skipped a day of school in the past month because of feeling unsafe. Such a toxic environment denies LGBT students their right to an equal education and contributes to unacceptably high rates of absenteeism, dropouts, adverse health (including mental health) consequences, and academic underachievement.

The Student Non-Discrimination Act will help to ensure that discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students has no place in our country's public schools. The legislation builds on existing protections for students based on their race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin, and will provide LGBT students and their families with legal recourse against discriminatory treatment.

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more than a half million members and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we urge you to co-sponsor S. 3390, the Student Non-Discrimination Act. This important legislation, which was recently introduced by Senator Franken, would establish a comprehensive federal prohibition against discrimination in public schools based on a student's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and provides victims with meaningful and effective remedies modeled after Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.

The ACLU's own work advocating for equal protection for LGBT students is replete with examples of those who have suffered discriminatory treatment at the very hands of those tasked with providing them with an education and ensuring their safety within schools.

By Harvey Grossman, Legal Director

On November 2, voters in Illinois will decide whether to amend our state constitution to allow for a recall election for the office of governor. While the concept of recall raises no civil liberties concerns, the process proposed in the amendment is contrary to democratic principles and violates the constitution.
Recall is a political matter. In most states with recall, the law requires no grounds or bad conduct by the office holder and the process directly expresses the will of the voters through a special election. Impeachment, the other mechanism by which an official may be removed from office, requires specific wrongdoing and is a legal process carried out by the legislature. Eighteen states provide for the recall of state officers and the requirements generally are rigorous. Besides the 2003 recall of California Governor Grey Davis, only one other governor has ever been recalled-- Governor Lynn Frazier of North Dakota in 1921.
Those who favor recall believe it places deserved power in the hands of the voters and eliminates the need to rely on legislators to impeach officials. Objectors, on the other hand, believe terms of office are relatively short and that recall elections are unnecessarily expensive. Whatever one may think of the merits of recall, everyone agrees that the procedures for recall must be fair and treat all voters equally. Unfortunately, the Illinois proposal does not meet these basic requirements.
The amendment to be considered by Illinois voters requires that a recall petition be signed by a number of voters equal to at least 15% of the total votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, with at least 100 signatures from each of at least 25 separate counties. It is this requirement for voter signatures from multiple counties that throws an unconstitutional wrench in the works.
Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the core principle of "one man, one vote". This value is now deeply engrained in our national psyche, as well as our law. In addition to apportionment schemes, the courts have applied the doctrine to the collection of signatures as part of an electoral process, including for the nomination of candidates, the formulation of new political parties and other voter initiatives. In fact, the Supreme Court has required that all procedures that are an integral part of the election process must pass muster under one person, one vote. The collection of signatures for a recall election clearly falls within the rule.
The proposed constitutional amendment violates one person, one vote because by requiring 100 signatures from each of at least 25 separate counties, the signatures of electors in less populous counties will have greater value than the signatures of electors in more populous counties. While one person, one vote generally requires election districts to have approximately equal numbers of voters, the populations of registered voters in Illinois counties vary widely, from 3300 in Pope County to nearly 2.9 million in Cook County.
For example, using the 2006 gubernatorial election as an index, a recall petition would require approximately 530,000 signatures. Under the proposed amendment the electorate in Illinois' most populous 24 counties (6.4 million voters) which contains 84% of the registered voters could not petition for a recall, but 530,000 of the remaining 16% of registered voters (1.2 million) properly distributed among the 78 remaining counties could successfully petition for the recall of a governor. This disparity clearly violates the one person, one vote principle.
It may be our Legislature wanted to insure broad geographical support for a recall effort. But the Supreme Court in Moore v. Ogilvie (a case that came from Illinois) long ago rejected that objective as a valid justification for imposing a geographical signature requirement on districts with varying numbers of electors. All voters, the Court said, must be treated equally whether they are urban or rural, or come from sparsely settled or populous counties.
Passage of the proposed amendment will only lead to voter distrust and confusion. The unfair burden the amendment places on a future recall effort is substantial and unconstitutional. The amendment, if passed, likely will be challenged in the courts, either by voters seeking recall or by a corrupt governor seeking to stave off a recall election. When faced with the issue, the judiciary will strike down the entire amendment unless it finds that the legislature intended to have a recall amendment even in the absence of the multi-county signature requirement. Whatever the resolution of that issue may be, voters who support recall should not have to depend on its outcome to give meaning to their vote. The Legislature should go back to the drawing board on recall.
crossposted in the Chicago Tribune