It is evident that the Trump administration is about to embark on a nationwide voter suppression campaign to disenfranchise thousands or even millions of voters. This campaign will be based on lies and myths about voter fraud, and it will be carried out under the name of “election integrity.” It is beginning with a mind-boggling demand for Secretaries of State to turn over detailed profiles of all registered voters in every state. It is essential that Colorado, a state that prides itself on voter participation and access, not be complicit in federal efforts to suppress the vote.
In order to soothe his ego after losing the popular vote in the 2016 election, President Trump made completely false and imaginary claims that he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal voters. In reality, voter fraud (defined as an ineligible person voting, someone voting in the name of another person, or someone voting multiple times in an election) is extremely rare. Very few people are willing to commit a felony for the sake of one vote, and very few do. (And it is worth noting that most of the very few known cases in 2016 were Trump voters.)
What is not rare is voter suppression, through voter roll purges, misinformation, felon disenfranchisement, voter ID laws that block many citizens from voting, a wide variety of other obstacles to registration and voting, and gerrymandering to manipulate outcomes and make the votes of many citizens less meaningful. Voter suppression can affect hundreds of thousands of votes at a time, and can alter the outcome of elections, which isolated voter fraud never does. Yet stopping voter fraud is often the excuse that is used for massive voter suppression.
This newest attack on our democracy is being deceptively framed as an effort for “election integrity.” Mike Pence and Kris Kobach (one of the worst voter suppression perpetrators in the nation) have demanded that Secretaries of State in every state turn over extensive personal information about every registered voter by July 14 to a centralized “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity” under their control. They want names, addresses, birthdates, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, voting histories, military status, felony information, and much more. Who knows how this enormous database could be abused by this administration? Undoubtedly they will use any inconsistencies they find to justify huge selective voter purges and policies that will block many legitimate voters from voting. Relatively common errors or duplications in registration records will be falsely claimed to be evidence of widespread voter fraud. Don’t be fooled—registration is not the same as voting, and actual voter fraud is almost nonexistent.
Several Secretaries of State, including in Kentucky, California, Rhode Island and Virginia, have already stated that they will not participate in this data-gathering scheme. In Colorado, Secretary of State Wayne Williams has indicated that he will provide any data that is publicly accessible. Williams should refuse to cooperate in every way possible, providing nothing that is not required by law, objecting to the purpose of this request, and making it no easier than necessary for Pence and Kobach to assemble their database. Anything less would be complicit in voter suppression. Williams should protect Colorado voters and elections, not expose Colorado to a politicized national scheme to depress voting.
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives has sought to strip funding from the Election Assistance Commission, a small federal agency charged with helping states improve and protect their voting systems. At a time of known efforts by hostile foreign powers to hack American elections, this proof of disregard for real election integrity is staggering.
Be ready for an onslaught of voter suppression tactics justified by baseless claims of rampant voter fraud. It is the responsibility of every American to fight vigorously against voter suppression schemes that disenfranchise millions of voters and distort our elections. Nothing less than our democracy is at stake.

By James Esseks, Director, LGBT & HIV Project

The United States Supreme Court just agreed to decide a case about whether a business can refuse to sell commercial goods to a gay couple because of the business owner’s religious beliefs.  A win for the business could gut the nation’s civil rights laws, licensing discrimination not just against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, but against anyone protected by our non-discrimination rules.
In July 2012, Debbie Munn accompanied her son, Charlie Craig, and his fiancé, Dave Mullins, to the Masterpiece Cakeshop just outside of Denver to pick out a cake for their wedding reception.  When the bakery’s owner heard that the cake was for two men, he said he wouldn’t sell them a cake because of his religious beliefs.
Debbie was stunned and humiliated for Charlie and Dave.  As she has  said, “It was never about the cake.”  She couldn’t believe that a business would be allowed to turn people away because of who they are or whom they love.  They might as well have posted a sign in the shop saying “No cakes for gays.”
The Colorado courts agreed with Debbie and ruled that the bakery’s refusal was unlawful and rejected the bakery’s request for a religious exemption from the state’s longstanding non-discrimination law.
By granting review in Charlie and Dave’s case, the Supreme Court has placed a spotlight on supposed tensions between equality and religious liberty.  But the country has already found the right balance between these two important constitutional interests.
Under the Constitution, we each have the right to our own religious beliefs.  We are empowered to act on those beliefs --  but not when our actions would harm others.  That’s because religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against or harm other people.
When businesses open their doors to the public, they must open them to everyone on the same terms, regardless of race, color, national origin, disability, or – under many state laws – sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Even when a business owner’s religious beliefs may motivate her to discriminate, that doesn’t justify an exemption from our civil rights laws.  Providing commercial services, like selling cakes, doesn’t mean a business owner is endorsing anyone’s marriage.  It simply means they are following the rules that apply to us all.
Demands for religious exemptions from civil rights laws are not new.  In the past, businesses have repeatedly sought to pay women less than men because of a religious belief that men are “heads of household” and women should not work outside the home.  Other businesses have refused service to people living with HIV because of a belief that they are sinful.  Still others turned people away from restaurants because of their belief that they should not interact with people of a different race.  The courts rightly rejected all of these claims for religious exemptions, despite the fact that they were based on deeply held beliefs.
There’s no reason that religious exemptions should be any more acceptable when it comes to turning people away because of religious beliefs about sexual orientation or gender identity.  Courts across the country have agreed, including a decision from the Washington State Supreme Court in February.
The religious exemptions issue has gained prominence recently as civil rights protections for gay and transgender people have become more widespread.  States have proposed laws that would license discrimination by businesses, government workers, adoption agencies, and counselors.  Congress has considered similar measures. And President Trump has signed an executive order that signaled his intent to use religious exemptions to advance discrimination. But polling shows that both the American public and business owners themselves reject these overbroad exemptions and recognize them as discrimination.
Charlie’s mom was right:  It’s not about the cake. Or the flowers. It’s about not being turned away from a business because of who you are.  Religious freedom must be protected in America, but what’s going on here is pure discrimination.
This post originally appeared on ACLU National's Speak Freely blog: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/can-businesses-turn-lgbt-people-away-because-who-they-are-thats-supreme-court-now

By Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Abandoning a longstanding constitutional protection for the separation of church and state, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that a church must be allowed to participate in a state program that provides direct taxpayer grants to improve school playground surfaces. The decision was very troubling. As we argued in our friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the government should not be funneling public funds directly to churches or other houses of worship, for any reason. Period.
Those who support government funding of religion are rejoicing over the ruling, eager to secure public dollars for a variety of religious purposes, including school vouchers that are barred under many state constitutions. But lawmakers shouldn’t take out their checkbooks just yet. As troubling as Monday’s decision was for the separation of church and state, it was based on explicitly narrow grounds. The court went out of its way to note that the ruling applies only to “express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” which the court appeared to view as a secular use of funds.
The decision did not address — and thus left in place — other restrictions on public funding of religion, including what the court characterized as “religious uses of funding,” which have long been prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court also affirmed that it is still proper for states to take into account the proposed use for government funds when awarding them. A state may still, for instance, enforce its state constitutional provisions protecting the separation of church and state by declining to provide taxpayer dollars for the training of ministers, even as part of a broader grant program.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that court should have gone further by holding that the First Amendment requires houses of worship and other religious institutions to be eligible for government funding programs regardless of whether the funds will be put to “religious uses.” The other seven justices, however, did not subscribe to this view, which would overturn longstanding precedent on this issue and completely upend — even more so than Monday’s decision — the First Amendment’s delicate balance between safeguarding the free exercise of religion while also protecting against its establishment.
Yesterday, in light of the Trinity Lutheran decision, the Supreme Court also vacated and remanded several state supreme court decisions pertaining to government funding of religious institutions, including a 2015 victory by the ACLU and allies against a Colorado school voucher program. Although the Supreme Court sent those cases back to the state courts for further consideration, it routinely takes this approach when it issues an opinion addressing an issue that relates to existing litigation. It gives the lower courts the first opportunity to determine what effect, if any, recent rulings may have on the case. But it doesn’t affect the limited nature of the Trinity Lutheran decision itself. The Colorado Constitution, for example, prohibits public funds from being used for religious purposes, directly or indirectly. School vouchers, which will fund religious education and indoctrination, as well as religious discrimination against students, plainly violate that provision. Nothing in the Trinity Lutheran decision requires the Colorado courts to abandon the state’s long history of protecting against the use of taxpayer money for such purposes.
While Monday’s narrow ruling does not provide a broad authorization for government funding of religion, it is nevertheless a stark warning for those of us who value the Constitution’s abiding protection for the separation of church and state. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wisely cautioned in her forceful dissent, whatever one thinks of the outcome in Trinity Lutheran, the real concern is “what it might enable tomorrow.” Never before has the court held that the government may provide direct cash aid to a church. If the court is willing to cross that constitutional line here, it does not bode well for upholding other Establishment Clause principles in the future.
This post originally appeared on ACLU National's Speak Freely blog:  https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/supreme-courts-troubling-decision-funding-church-playgrounds