Last month, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to review the life sentence of Fair Wayne Bryant, who was sentenced to life in prison for attempting to steal a pair of hedge clippers more than 20 years ago. Bryant’s sentence was the result of Louisiana’s extreme “habitual offender” law, which allows people to spend life in prison for minor offenses. While the court should have reviewed the sentence, the legislature should abolish this law, and until then, Orleans prosecutors should refuse to seek it.

Habitual offender statutes, known in some states as “three strikes” laws, are a relic of failed “tough on crime” policies that have had devastating consequences for families and communities across the country. Both racist and punitive in their nature, these enhancements drive out of control prison populations in states that have some of the highest incarceration rates in the world, Oklahoma and Louisiana among them. 

Under these statutes, a person who is convicted of more than one felony crime faces longer and longer sentences for each subsequent conviction — no matter how minor or how much time has passed since. Not only are these laws racist, they are also ineffective and unnecessary from a public safety perspective. The majority (64 percent) of people serving time in Louisiana prisons under the law are there for nonviolent crimes, and Black people represent nearly 80 percent of those convicted as habitual offenders.

The sheer cruelty and unfairness of Mr. Bryant’s sentence is enraging and inexcusable, but it is no anomaly: It is part and parcel of a system designed to perpetuate racial injustice and white supremacy. 

Louisiana’s extreme sentencing law has condemned thousands of Louisianans to life imprisonment for minor offenses, helping make Louisiana the world’s leading incarcerator. And its longevity is a prime example of how our legal system continues to oppress, brutalize, and imprison Black and Brown people.

In a scathing dissent to the decision, Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson traced the law to the Black codes and “Pig Laws” during the post-Civil War era, which attempted to re-enslave newly-freed Black people. 

“These laws remained on the books of most Southern states for decades,” Justice Johnson wrote. “And this case demonstrates their modern manifestation: harsh habitual offender laws that permit a life sentence for a Black man convicted of property crimes.” 

Bryant’s outrageous and unjust sentence is a reminder of the urgent need for state legislators to repeal this extreme sentencing law before it needlessly destroys more people’s lives. Ballot initiatives like Oklahoma’s Yes On 805 campaign seek to put an end to the destructive power of habitual sentencing enhancements through the electoral process. Fortunately for Louisiana, our district attorneys don’t have to wait. 

Prosecutors — right now — have the discretion to stop seeking enhanced penalties under the habitual offender law, and all of us have a responsibility to hold them to it. 

There are dozens of district attorneys on the ballot across Louisiana this year — including in Orleans Parish, where District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro is stepping down after 12 years of pushing ineffective “tough on crime” policies. 

The ACLU of Louisiana is proud to be among more than 30 organizations in the People’s DA Coalition, which, among other reforms, is calling on Orleans Parish District Attorney candidates to commit to ending all use of the habitual offender law.

Prosecutors have a vital role to play in helping ensure Louisiana finally sheds its title as the prison capital of the world, and declining to seek harsher sentences under this unjust law would be one important step in that direction.

Alanah Odoms Hebert, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana

Millions of people are planning to vote by mail in this election, and for most, it will be the first time. COVID-19 has made voting by mail more popular than ever because it’s the safest way for many to cast a ballot. But some voters still have questions about the safety and security of this method, and whether their mail-in ballot will be counted. Contradictory messages from President Trump add to the confusion — even though the president, and many of his cabinet members, vote by mail themselves.

All voters are able to make an informed decision on how to cast a ballot — and that means cutting through the confusion to debunk common misperceptions about vote by mail.

Fears of lost or uncounted ballots are not unfounded. In communities of color, this skepticism is rooted in the long history of voter suppression targeting people of color. In the South, for example, various Jim Crow voter restrictions blocked the Black vote for decades. Other communities of color, such as Indigenous people, have also experienced systemic disenfranchisement even after nominally getting the right to vote.

Other fears may be rooted in memories of the messy, contested presidential election of 2000, which led to several recounts that often centered on the question of which ballots counted, and which did not. But the vast majority of ballots that were tossed out were cast in person.

The truth is, casting a ballot by mail is a secure way to vote. The USPS delivers each ballot to the voter securely, and all states have a method for tracking who receives a mail-in ballot. In many states, the mail-in ballot envelope is stamped with a barcode to match each individual voter. Mail-in ballots leave a paper trail and the process of counting them can be audited to ensure checks and balances.

Vote by mail also helps to advance equal access to the ballot among communities of color, and the more people vote by mail, the more efficiency we’ll see at the polls for those who choose to vote in person.

Some voters may not be able to take off enough time from work to get to the polls on Election Day. Others may have children or other obligations that make it difficult to make time to vote. Voting in person can come with additional delays if there are long lines, broken machines, or changes to protocol due to COVID-19.

Casting a mail-in ballot, however, takes about as long as putting an envelope in the mail. It allows people to vote on their own time, so that nobody has to sacrifice a paycheck or other obligations to vote on Election Day.

Voter education initiatives across the country are teaching voters how easy and efficient it can be to vote by mail. Visit the ACLU’s Let People Vote tool or other educational platforms to find what your state requires, and to learn how to request a ballot, track your ballot, and mail your ballot early to meet deadlines.

Ballots can include new candidates and policies, and not all voters know about them ahead of time. People who vote by mail have an advantage when it comes to casting an informed vote, because they are able to research what’s on their ballot after receiving it. Voters can look up unfamiliar names and policies, research candidates’ records, and gather any other information they need to make sure they are fully informed before marking their ballot. On the other hand, people who vote in person must do all their research before they get to the polls, because they won’t get the chance once it’s their turn in the voting booth.

Look up your candidates’ voting records using the ACLU’s candidate scorecard.

President Trump and other politicians have attempted to link vote by mail with unfounded claims of voter fraud in an effort to discourage or even prohibit people from voting by mail. In reality, voter fraud is almost nonexistent, and it’s even less likely to occur through voting by mail.

Whether you decide to vote differently this year or the same way you always vote, this Election Day is sure to be unlike any other. It’s already making history as COVID-19 has spurred states across the country to expand access to the ballot to allow millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. And those who choose to vote in person are bound to run into new protocols in response to COVID-19. With so many parts of this tradition changing, it’s all the more important that voters prepare themselves and plan ahead.

Visit the Let People Vote voter guide to find out your options for casting a ballot in your state, as well as state requirements to register, apply, and cast a vote.

Rita, a single mother, was desperate to find an affordable home in Palm Beach County, Florida, after suffering a foreclosure a few years earlier. After searching for some time, she finally found an apartment within her price range but there was one huge problem: Soon after she moved in, the property manager began to sexually harass her.
 
He took advantage of Rita’s financial circumstances — and his position of power over her — to extort sexual acts from her in exchange for reduced rent. The harassment escalated, as he tracked her whereabouts, monitored her guests, and installed surveillance cameras facing her home. After Rita refused to continue with the “quid pro quo” arrangement, the property manager retaliated. He served her with fraudulent violation and eviction notices, filed an eviction action against her even though she owed no rent, and asked the police to arrest her for trespassing. 

Rita filed a lawsuit against the property manager, arguing that his harassment of her and retaliatory acts once she rejected his sexual behavior violated the federal Fair Housing Act, which protects people from discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment. In a shocking decision, the trial court dismissed her case at the earliest stage, concluding that even if she could prove all of her allegations, the property manager’s conduct would not qualify as either harassment or retaliation. 

Yesterday, the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, along with the National Fair Housing Alliance, National Women’s Law Center, Relman Colfax PLLC, and other groups, filed an amicus brief in support of Rita’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The brief lays out the consistent case law that shows sexual harassment in housing violates civil rights guarantees. It also underscores the inherent power imbalance between a housing provider and a tenant, arguing that an owner or property manager violates the Fair Housing Act when he conditions a tenant’s rental payment on her submission to sexual acts as well as when he retaliates against her when she refuses.

Unfortunately, Rita’s experience is far from anomalous. Sexual harassment in housing remains a widespread and insidious issue for women and LGBTQ tenants across the country. And the COVID-19 pandemic has only made tenants more vulnerable to harassment and abuse by landlords and property managers who abuse tenants’ financial insecurity and shelter-in-place orders.

Sexual harassment in the home in uniquely violative and threatening, as the home is supposed to be one’s place of refuge. Victims of sexual harassment have reported severe and often immobilizing emotional and physiological consequences, including shame, depression, sleeplessness, headaches, and anxiety. In many cases, individuals are forced to move out of their homes to escape the abuse. But such displacement is expensive and often results in financial hardship due to steep moving costs, loss of security deposits, and even job loss.

Critically, women of color are especially vulnerable to sexual harassment and its lasting consequences due to the intersecting experiences of racism and sexism. The testimony of Black women, Indigenous women, and other women of color often reveals that they have been sexually harassed or targeted precisely because of their race and stereotypes about women of color.

Moreover, the harmful impact of sexual harassment is magnified for women and gender-nonconforming tenants who hold other marginalized identities. Women with disabilities, for example, face higher rates of sexual harassment and violence than those without disabilities. Transgender women and other LGBTQ-plus tenants also experience significant barriers to housing access due to harassment and abuse based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yet despite the devastating consequences of discrimination on tenants, landlords lag far behind employers and schools in ensuring that they and their staff are held accountable when they perpetrate sexual harassment, or when they know of harassment committed by other tenants. Courts should hold landlords accountable when they fail to address harassment, including sexual harassment, committed by tenants — just as employers are responsible for responding to sexual harassment at the workplace, and schools are responsible for responding to complaints by students. We recently filed an amicus brief in Francis v. Kings Manor Park — a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — arguing that a housing provider should be held liable under the Fair Housing Act for refusing to respond to discriminatory tenant-on-tenant harassment.

Enforcing the Fair Housing Act’s protections against sexual harassment — whether by landlords, property managers, or other tenants — is a crucial step. It has been established time and again that this nation’s civil rights statutes broadly protect against sexual harassment in every major facet of one’s life. The courts must apply the Fair Housing Act’s protections to ensure equal housing opportunity for women and all marginalized communities.

Linda Morris, Skadden Fellow, ACLU Women’s Rights Project,
& Sandra Park, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Women's Rights Project