One year ago today, President Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to conduct effective voter registration. Given the onslaught of attacks on voting rights across the country, this executive order on Promoting Access to Voting was imperative, and is an unprecedented opportunity for the federal government to provide meaningful opportunities to register to vote and expand access to the ballot for millions of Americans.

Although we applauded President Biden for issuing this voting executive order, this does not replace the need for federal legislation to protect the right to vote. We urge Congress to cement the legacy of the Voting Rights Act and guard the rights of all Americans by passing the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act. This federal legislation would restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act.

The voting executive order is unprecedented because it encourages federal agencies and states to embrace the original intent of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which contemplates that the federal government should provide voter registration services. Regrettably, before 2021 this provision of the NVRA, which was specifically designed to engage the federal government, has been largely untapped. The NVRA permits federal and nongovernmental offices to be designated as additional voter registration agencies. Biden’s executive order strongly encourages implementation of this underused provision.

The good news is that since the voting executive order was issued, a number of federal agencies have made firm public commitments to increase access to voting information and expand voter registration opportunities, including:

• The General Services Administration committed to ensuring that gov is a user-friendly and accessible portal for Americans, including those with disabilities and language assistance needs, to find the information they need to register and vote. This will allow agencies across the federal government to link to vote.gov and encourage Americans to participate in the electoral process
• The Indian Health Service committed to offering its patients assistance with voter registration.
• The Department of Justice committed to providing information about voting to individuals in federal custody and facilitating voting to those who are eligible.
• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services committed to creating a connection to voter registration services for consumers using HealthCare.gov.

While we are very encouraged by this progress, we implore the federal government to do more. There are many additional federal programs where following the NVRA model for providing voter registration services would be easy and effective. For example, robust voter registration services should be provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at all naturalization ceremonies, and an opportunity to register to vote should be incorporated into the Free Application for Federal Student Aid administrated by the Department of Education. Newly naturalized citizens and younger people like college students are both underrepresented in our electorate, and incorporating voter registration services into these programs would provide great opportunities to address this underrepresentation.

It is not just federal agencies that need to act. Despite the strong commitment to fulfill the intent of the NVRA illustrated by the administration’s executive order, to date, no state agency has taken advantage of the provision which would allow any federal agency to become a voter registration agency under the NVRA within their state. There have not been any requests from states to federal agencies to become NVRA voter registration agencies, even though both the Small Business Administration and the Department of Interior have made public commitments that they would accept such requests. We implore state election officials to immediately take advantage of the opportunity this executive order would present.

In issuing the executive order, the administration demonstrated its strong commitment to ensuring unfettered access to the ballot. Now, the order must be implemented expansively and comprehensively.

In Montana, an all too familiar constitutional crisis is underway. Pretrial defendants who cannot afford a lawyer are languishing behind bars, awaiting the legal representation they are entitled to because public defenders face untenable caseloads. In response, Rhonda Lindquist, who leads the Office of the State Public Defender, was held in contempt of court and fined $8,500 by a county district judge. Lindquist’s overburdened and understaffed office was declining too many cases, the judge found, denying indigent defendants facing criminal charges their constitutional right to legal representation.

Lindquist’s offense is not one of negligence — she has tried to secure additional funding to hire more lawyers so that every indigent defendant’s right to counsel is protected; so far, lawmakers have been utterly unresponsive. Both the judge and the state public defender face an impossible situation: The public defender is ethically obligated to decline new cases if taking those cases would make it impossible for her lawyers to adequately represent their existing clients. And the judge is trying to uphold his oath of office and ensure that indigent defendants are not denied their constitutional right to counsel and railroaded through the system without representation. The state public defender and the judge cannot solve this crisis by battling with each other — the governor and lawmakers need to step in and ensure that Montana’s public defense system is constitutional.

While the clash between a judge and state public defender in Montana may be an outlier, it speaks to the broader crisis of public defense. Two reports released in January highlight the severe shortage of public defenders in Oregon and New Mexico, which are short roughly 1,300 and 600 public defenders, respectively. In both states, caseloads are significantly higher than the current systems can constitutionally support. Oregon is overloaded by more than 65,000 cases per year; New Mexico by more than 40,000 cases per year. But this crisis reaches far beyond three states. The ACLU’s docket reflects that public defense systems across the country have long failed to ensure the integrity of state and local convictions and the constitutional rights of people accused of crimes. Last week, the ACLU of Maine filed a case challenging the public defense system in Maine. We are also years into litigation in Missouri and Idaho, and between our national and affiliate offices we have previously litigated these cases in Nevada, California, South Carolina, Washington, Montana, Utah, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Louisiana.

To be clear, public defenders are not the problem: At their best, they are the champions of our rights, people who strive to be David when Goliath shows up. The problem is that states refuse to adequately support and properly structure this critical function. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of criminal cases in this country proceed against people who cannot afford to hire their own attorney. Roughly four out of five criminal defendants do not have the means to hire a lawyer and rely on public defenders or court-appointed lawyers. Without adequate public defense, most people in the criminal legal system face the full force of government power with nothing more than illusory rights. The constitutional rights we owe to someone before they are incarcerated simply cannot be vindicated in five minutes, yet that is all defendants in a given courtroom may get with their public defender before their liberty is taken away — if they’re “lucky.” And if you think this doesn’t affect you, your loved ones, or your friends, consider that an estimated one in three Americans will be arres­ted by the age of 23.

We should all be concerned that in many places around the country the constitutional right to counsel is unrealized. But the right to counsel also protects other constitutional rights. When we don’t protect the right to counsel, we also sacrifice our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, against excessive bail, to confront one’s accusers, to have prosecutors disclose exculpatory evidence before trial, and many others.

Moreover, as Premal Dharia has observed, crucial policy changes like ending cash bail, increasing diversion programs, ending prosecution of certain drug or minor cases, and using discretion not to seek the death penalty “won’t have nearly the impact they could because a critical piece of the infrastructure is missing: resourced public defenders.”

The judges who adjudicate our public defense lawsuits take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution; too often we have to turn to them for redress when the right to counsel is under attack. But those judges are not the only actors in the system who must actively take steps to solve this crisis. Lawmakers, prosecutors, and judges in criminal courts must all do a better job ensuring that people are not threatened with incarceration without the benefit of a rigorous defense and access to all the rights our Constitution guarantees. For legislators, this means funding and properly structuring public defense. For prosecutors, this means using their vast discretion to dismiss or divert cases. For criminal court judges, the oath to uphold the Constitution means intervening when they see that an individual defendant’s right to counsel is going unfulfilled and when they see that the system as a whole is failing.

The country’s failure to fulfill the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright — the U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the state’s constitutional obligation to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants — affects people of all political stripes and has drawn condemnation from politically diverse voices. On the 50th anniversary of Gideon, former Attorney General Eric Holder observed that he “frequently witnessed the devastating consequences of inadequate representation,” including wrongful convictions, unjust sentences, and the corrosion of integrity and trust in the justice system. From a different perspective, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council adopted a formal resolution recognizing that public defense systems “must be included as an equal and valued partner in the criminal justice system,” and resolving that adequate funding was essential to ensure manageable workloads and competent representation. Similarly, the Koch Industries supports public defense reform and has invested in addressing this crisis.

Without robust public defense, our criminal legal system is doomed to violate people’s rights. Those with the power to ensure the right to counsel is protected have a path forward; they just have to take it.

Our First Amendment rights to read, learn, and discuss vital topics in schools are under attack. Since 2021, 10 states have passed classroom censorship bills that restrict discussions about race and gender in schools. In 2022 alone, state legislatures have introduced 111 new bills across 33 states, many of which explicitly target K-12 schools. These attacks come at a time when various groups — including state lawmakers and local school board officials — are simultaneously pushing to ban books from school and public libraries, primarily books by and about BIPOC, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups.

Here, we break down the new string of classroom censorship attacks that are impacting students and teachers across the country, chronicling both the rapid evolution of classroom censorship and our ongoing movement to defend the right to a complete and inclusive education.

What is Critical Race Theory and why has it come under fire?

Critical race theory, or CRT, is an academic and legal framework focused on how systemic racism is deeply ingrained in and shapes American society. The term “critical race theory” has been co-opted by opponents as a catchall term to apply broadly to classroom discussions about race and racism, gender identity, sexuality, and sexism. For example, under the guise of banning CRT-related discussions, some legislatures have broadly prohibited discussions of conscious and unconscious bias, or have attempted to ban the 1619 Project, a book detailing the history of slavery and its lasting impacts in the U.S., from schools. At their core, anti “CRT” laws are thinly veiled attempts to silence discussions of race, gender, and sexuality amongst students and educators. These laws suppress free speech and deny people the right to an accurate, complete, and inclusive learning environment.

Which states have passed classroom censorship laws restricting the teaching of race and gender in schools, and what’s happening at the local level?

Since January 2021, 10 states have passed classroom censorship laws regulating discussions about race, gender, sexuality, and systemic inequality. Among these states is Oklahoma, where a diverse group of students and educators filed a federal lawsuit against the state for its classroom censorship bill, HB 1775. Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, and New Hampshire have also passed similar classroom censorship bills in 2021. In 2022 alone, we’ve seen 26 new states introduce similar censorship bills.

These classroom censorship efforts are occurring at both local and state levels, and will have devastating and wide-reaching consequences for millions of students across the country. A recent UCLA study focusing on local classroom censorship efforts found that more than 17.7 million public school students, or 35 percent of all K-12 students in the United States, have been impacted by anti-“CRT”efforts in the classroom. These efforts chill students from being able to openly talk about the history, experiences, and viewpoints of all communities represented in the classroom.

What are the common aspects of the recent classroom censorship bills?

Many of the bills ban what state lawmakers — borrowing from the Trump administration — have deemed “divisive concepts,” particularly discussions about systemic racism or sexism, white privilege, and male privilege. State legislatures claim these discussions would result in students feeling guilt or shame on account of their race or sex.

Another common feature to the newly introduced 2022 bills is their overly broad scope and vagueness, lacking clear definitions for important terms and sometimes including contradictory language. Some of these bills also include drastic penalties and threaten teachers with termination, schools with potential withholding of state funds, and students with fines up to $10,000 if they are caught talking or learning about issues related to race and gender.

What are “curriculum transparency laws” and how do they relate to the other classroom censorship bills?

A number of state lawmakers have also started introducing “curriculum transparency” bills that require schools to post all their teaching materials online, including books, articles, and videos. The ACLU strongly supports transparency when it comes to government bodies, including public schools. In the context of curriculum, transparency is already the norm: Parents can typically access the curriculum that public schools are teaching to their children. In any place where that is not the case, the ACLU would unequivocally support stronger transparency requirements.

Where we part ways with the sponsors of some of these bills is in the means by which the norm of transparency should be enforced. In the name of transparency, some states are contemplating putting students and teachers under nonstop surveillance. No one should be forced to learn, or teach, under those conditions. For example, in Florida, one lawmaker recently introduced legislation that would allow the constant videorecording and surveilling of teachers and children in the classroom for signs of teaching and learning about race and gender. We can keep our communities informed without placing students and their teachers under a surveillance microscope that inevitably chills speech and free thinking.

Why are government actors waging a war on books?

Alongside classroom censorship efforts, the fight to remove books focusing on race, gender, and sexuality from school libraries and curricula has also escalated across the country. This is all the more concerning when it comes to government decisions about what books get to remain on library shelves, since libraries are the seminal places for exploring ideas, perspectives, and topics.

In the fall of 2021 alone, the American Library Association received more than 330 book challenges, doubling the 156 challenges it received in 2020. Some of the most frequently targeted books include books that center race, gender, and sexual identity, including Jonathan Evison’s “Lawn Boy,” Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer,” George Matthew Johnson’s “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” and Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye.” These book challenges are focusing on, and attacking, students’ access to books that are by and about BIPOC, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups.

States that have already passed classroom censorship bills have also introduced new legislation focused on book bans, furthering their efforts to narrow the scope of what students can read and learn in schools. Oklahoma’s SB 1142, for example, would prohibit public school libraries from keeping any books that address sexual or gender identity.

Book challenges also continue to ramp up at local levels in school board meetings. A school board in Tennessee recently and unanimously voted to ban “Maus,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its eighth-grade curriculum. The ACLU of Tennessee sent an open records request seeking information about the school board’s decision to remove “Maus” from its curriculum.

We’re also actively pursuing litigation to block these laws and policies. The ACLU of Missouri recently filed a lawsuit suing the Wentzville R-IV School District for banning eight books — including “The Bluest Eye,” “Lawn Boy,” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” — from school library shelves. After the lawsuit was filed, the school board voted to rescind the ban of “The Bluest Eye.”

Censoring books by and about BIPOC and LGBTQ people is inherently discriminatory and antithetical to our First Amendment rights.

What’s next for 2022?

State and local lawmakers are doubling down on their crusade against a complete, accurate, and inclusive education. The right to free expression includes the freedom to read and learn, free from viewpoint-based censorship. We will continue to defend that right.

We call on lawmakers, students, parents, educators, and community members to support the fight against these classroom censorship attacks and book challenges. The battle is far from over.