By Rosalie Wilmot

(This op-ed column appeared in the July 17, 2012 edition of the Denver Post and can be seen online at denverpost.com)

I have been a canvasser for more than a year now. I’ve toiled under the sweltering summer sun while walking blocks and blocks in search of young people who need to be registered. I do this not because of a promise of compensation, but rather because I believe that every person deserves the opportunity to participate. I do it because I remember that the day I was registered to vote, I was given something far more important than a piece of yellow paper.

I was given a voice.

That’s why this year I am especially concerned about my generation turning out at the polls and making their mark on history. I have watched as voter photo identification bills and measures limiting same day registration have passed across the nation and large percentages of the population have been excluded from the most fundamental right we all share, the right to vote. I am worried because I know that these measures make it more difficult for young voices to be heard, I know that these “protections” largely make it more difficult for disenfranchised people to participate.

The consequences of inaction can be seen in our own communities. They are manifested in complacency and a disbelief that our voices even matter. As a young voter I remember my own process of discovery. .

Becoming a new voter is sort of like being reborn. You register and then wait impatiently for your ballot to arrive; you begin to read a bit closer when you hear of bills being introduced in the legislature. You begin to truly care about the democratic process. When your ballot finally arrives by mail, you are mostly ready. You unfold it neatly and pull out a fresh ballpoint pen. You carefully fill in the little circles and watch the ink dry. When you stick it in the mail – like a Christmas wish list to Santa – you have completed something worth bragging about.

You have acted as a citizen.

This year in Denver there are living signs that the system itself is in need of care. Secretary of State Scott Gessler wants to keep “inactive” voters from being sent mail ballots. For many Coloradans, missing one election in the past may cost them the ability to participate in future elections. If you did not participate in the last general election, you will be labeled an “inactive” voter and might not receive a mail ballot.

However, despite these attempts at voter suppression, there are also indicators of support for the democratic process. . This year the 150 polling places around Denver will be complemented by 13 voting centers with drive-up, drop-off service along with ten secure ballot drop boxes with 24-hour accessibility. Posters are being hung in homeless shelters and IPad applications have been developed to increase accessibility for seniors. When we participate in our community and focus on issues, we do have the power to create change. It begins with a decision to participate – and is dependent on policies that make participation possible.

This election, be ready.

Visit GoVoteColorado.com to check your status. If you have moved since the last time you registered, you must re-register. Don’t take it for granted, visit the website to make certain.

The registration deadline for the General Election Nov. 6, 2012 is Oct. 9, so if you are registering close to the deadline at any location besides the Denver Elections Division, make sure they validate your registration with a date and time stamp.

I hope for democracy —which is why I educate and prepare myself for upcoming elections. I pull on my volunteer shirt and I set up a table to register voters. I talk to young people. I try to hear their vast perspectives. I remind myself, as well as others, that our vote requires follow-up action and that we are the true watchdogs of our own freedoms. Beyond our own acts as citizens, we also desperately need elected officials who seek to expand opportunities, rather than suppress them.

Colorado: Let people vote.

Our voices are ready to be heard.

Wilmot, of Denver, is a 2012 graduate of the University of Denver and a Media Intern at the ACLU of Colorado.

In a letter dated July 16, 2012, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado demanded that Arapahoe County Sheriff J. Grayson Robinson rescind a recent Sheriff’s Office alert titled “Gypsy Scams” that could result in the racial profiling of persons described by the Sheriff’s Office as “Gypsies.”

The Sheriff’s Office bulletin describes a “Gypsy” as a “medium to dark complexioned Caucasian” with “dark hair and dark eyes” who “are often mistaken as Hispanic.” In the document, the Sheriff’s Office warns that “Gypsies” target the elderly and commit major crimes like home repair frauds and burglaries.

In the ACLU letter, Staff Attorney Sara Rich noted that the Sheriff’s physical description of “Gypsies” covered a wide swatch of the population, and the Sheriff’s warning that this group commits major crimes “can only serve to heighten any preexisting biases that community members may already have against ethnic groups that fit this general description, including Latinos.”

The letter criticizes the Sheriff for encouraging the community to regard persons as suspicious on the basis of physical appearance and thereby “subjecting countless innocent individuals to the risk of potential discrimination and harassment.”

“The investigation of crime should focus on behavior, not complexion,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. “To avoid racial profiling, law enforcement must discard ethnic stereotypes and focus on specific evidence about specific individuals. When communicating with the public, law enforcement must be especially careful to reject profiling and ethnic stereotyping.”

The ACLU’s letter noted that similar police bulletins targeting persons described as “Gypsies” prompted litigation charging a New Jersey police department with illegal racial profiling. In that case, the court said it was “disturbed” by police department alerts which sweepingly referred to “Gypsies” as “transient criminal families and individuals.”

The ACLU demanded that the “Gypsy Scam” bulletin be immediately rescinded. Attorneys for the organization also asked that the Sheriff issue a public statement that: 1) retracts previous comments about so-called “Gypsy scams” and 2) condemns discrimination against any person based on race, ethnicity or physical appearance.

Invoking the Colorado open records laws, the ACLU also demanded that the Sheriff release copies of its records related to “Gypsies” and “Gypsy scams” in Arapahoe County.

Arapahoe County includes 13 incorporated cities and towns, including Aurora, Centennial and Littleton. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the county has a population that exceeds 572,000 people. In the 2010 Census, nearly 20 percent of households responding self-identified as Hispanic or non-White.

more on this case

The ACLU of Colorado announced today that it has settled a lawsuit against Denver that sought the policy and procedure manual that governs the processing and treatment of detainees at Denver’s downtown city jail, known as the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility, or PADF. As part of the settlement, Denver agreed to disclose all portions of the manual designated by the ACLU, and to pay $5,000 of the ACLU of Colorado’s attorney fees and costs. The PADF is Denver’s intake center, where arrestees are first taken to be booked, fingerprinted, given the opportunity to post bond, and housed until they are released or eventually transferred to Denver’s larger county jail.

According to the lawsuit, despite repeated requests from the ACLU, Denver refused to disclose sections of the manual claiming that disclosure would be “contrary to the public interest.” After a final request for voluntary disclosure was again refused by Denver, the ACLU filed suit on May 19, 2008, seeking disclosure of the manual under the Colorado open records laws. Just prior to the first court hearing in the case that was scheduled for June 19, 2008, Denver agreed to turn over all manual sections designated by the ACLU on or before June 25, 2008, subject to redaction. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the ACLU can challenge in court any redactions it believes are unjustified.

“We are certainly pleased that the City has agreed to release the records,” said John Culver, an ACLU Cooperating Attorney who is lead counsel in the case. “Disclosure of the manual is firmly within the public interest, and the City’s policies at the jail should be transparent and open to any member of the public who wants to view them.”

Disclosure of the manual was necessary in part, the ACLU argued in the lawsuit, because of the possibility of mass arrests in connection with protests at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver. According to papers filed in court, last summer the ACLU asked Denver police to handle minor violations with a summons or a notice to appear in court, a practice known as “cite and release.” Denver Police Department Deputy Chief Battista reportedly responded that under Denver’s current policy, police must make full custodial arrests—requiring detention in the PADF—for even minor violations connected with protests.

The ACLU argued in the lawsuit that the public had a right to know whether Denver’s policies and procedures at the PADF were adequate to handle the mass influx of arrestees that could result as a consequence of such a policy during the DNC, especially after the events surrounding the Columbus Day protests in October of 2007 when just eighty arrests overwhelmed the PADF and resulted in delays of up to 12 hours before arrestees who had already posted bond were released. At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, police made over 1800 arrests causing serious problems with access to medical care, food, attorneys, and sanitary facilities.

“Denver has certainly done the right thing by finally releasing these policies,” stated ACLU of Colorado Staff Attorney Taylor Pendergrass, “We are disappointed that it took a lawsuit and Denver’s expenditure of $5,000 of Denver taxpayers’ money, however, to convince Denver to release documents that we believe clearly should have been disclosed in the first place.”
Under the terms of the settlement, Denver does not admit any liability or fault for refusing to disclose the portions of the manual sought by the ACLU.

The settlement of this case is unconnected to a separate lawsuit between the ACLU and Denver where the ACLU is seeking disclosure, under the Colorado open records laws, of records regarding how Denver is spending public moneys on less-lethal weaponry and other equipment prior to the DNC. A hearing in that case has been scheduled for June 24, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in Denver District Court.

more on this case