By Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director, ACLU of Arizona
No one is above the law , not even Joe Arpaio, the media-hungry sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. His stunts include reinstituting chain gangs (they include women and juveniles), erecting a tent city where over 2,000 convicted men and women serve out their sentences in 120 degree desert heat, feeding prisoners only twice a day (he's bragged of serving green bologna), and forcing them to wear pink underwear.
Much of the ACLU's legal docket in Arizona is devoted to challenging Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MSCO) policies that violate the constitutional rights of women, prisoners, and immigrants — for starters. Arpaio has spent hundreds of thousands of local taxpayers' money defending his indefensible and unconstitutional practices.
Late yesterday in Phoenix the bell rang on round II in the ACLU's fight to force "Sheriff Joe" to follow the law. We asked a state court judge to find him in contempt for refusing to comply with a 2005 court order that clearly requires him and his staff to provide transport for the women incarcerated in his jails who are seeking abortions.
That 2005 order was the end result of four years that the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project and the ACLU of Arizona spent in court challenging an unwritten MSCO policy. Jail officials were prohibited from transporting an inmate for an abortion (note: the women foot the bill for the abortion) unless the inmate first obtained a lawyer, asked for a court hearing, and convinced a judge to grant her an order to end her pregnancy.
In August 2005, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, struck down the unwritten policy, holding that it violated women's reproductive rights and served "no legitimate penological purpose." The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision; both the Arizona and the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
But that hasn't stopped the guy who loves being known as "America's Toughest Sheriff" from flouting the law; imposing his morality on the women in his jails; advancing his political agenda; or burnishing his public image using taxpayer dollars. After the US Supreme Court refused to review the case, Arpaio told the Republic's Michael Kiefer that he disagreed with the decision and would "see what happens if the situation comes before me again."
It didn't take long. This past spring, an inmate we're referring to in our motion as "Mary Roe" and her attorney pleaded with Arpaio and his staff to transport her for an abortion appointment. Deputy Chief John MacIntyre, an Arpaio crony who's one of the architects of the policy, had been involved in the original case and knew the court's decision. Still, MacIntyre said — yes, you guessed it — that the quickest way for her client to be transported would be for her to get a court order.
Roe was eventually able to get the abortion, but the four-week delay resulted in her having to endure a much longer and more emotionally difficult procedure.
So now we're heading back into court to spell out the law for Sheriff Joe and his staff, yet again, and ensure that other women don't get this kind of runaround. Our motion asks the court to require the jail to post signs in both English and Spanish informing prisoners of their right to be transported. All employees would be required to sign a statement acknowledging that they have been informed of the law. And we're asking the court to assess penalties for this violation and for future violations of the court order should they occur.
For all of his law-and-order bluff, Arpaio clearly has no intention of abiding by his oath to uphold the law when it isn't doesn't suit him. So we'll do what it takes to force him to respect the constitutional rights of women, even if it means hitting him in one of his most sensitive spots … his pocketbook.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: ACLU Reminds "America's Toughest Sheriff" That He's Not Above the Law.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8447
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Good for you ACLU.
As a side note/inquiry: I was under the impression that it was not only convicts that were held in Joe's "tent city" but also those awaiting trial who could not arrange bail. In other words people who are legally defined as "innocent" are forced to live in punitive conditions. I believe that this was indicated in the documentary, is this false?
Now if you all would get out of bed with the DMA and the CDT.
Tent city is one of the six facilities that make up the Maricopa County Jail and the only one of the six facilities where inmates convicted of a crime are held. Each of the other five facilities house pre-trial detainees - people who have been charged but who have not been convicted of anything. And it is these five facilities that are at issue presently. Arpaio is trying to get out from underneath the mandate of a federal consent decree requiring that he maintain conditions that meet constitutional minimums for pre-trial detainees. But based on the horrific conditions that continue to exist within these five facilities, there is no way that should be allowed to happen. Arpaio needs to be held accountable by the courts, and the pre-trial detainees at the Maricopa County jail deserve to be housed in adequate conditions.
"that violate the constitutional rights of women, prisoners, and immigrants"
this seems to me an interesting way to list things. This article is all about the prisoners, why list women as something other than prisoners? Reads very funny to me, replacing men with prisoners? Strange.
Logrus, the presumption of innocence is just something nice we put on paper. Every single criminal defendant in the US has to prove his or her innocence in court, every damn day. The system is set up that way, judges and administrators like it that way, and anyone arguing the contrary must be "soft on crime." It's a terrible, uphill battle the ACLU has, all for some nice words put on paper in the constituting document of our republic that were supposed to set out the values by which we govern ourselves.
dan&danica-
So all immigrants are not males? Or did you mean that all prisoners are male, women are women and immigrants are women? I don't get your point.
The list of human rights abuses committed by this Jackass is too long to mention, and thank you to the ACLU for continuing to stand up to him.
Just a little south, in Pima County, a respected attorney and human rights advocate is having her job threatened by the mouthbreathers who support the Jackass for having the audacity to hold an opinion while Hispanic and female. Femininsting posted a couple of days ago about a shock jock's sick assault on this woman, and there is a concerted effort to fire her for protesting Jackass and and his systemic abuses.
Please check out www.derechoshumanosaz.net for more background on this story and links to contact the Pima County Board of Supervisors in support of Ms. Garcia.
Most sheriffs are elected officials so I blame the community down there for this. But to be honest law enforcement is rarely held accountable for their actions. I'm "soft" on crime because I actually believe inmates should be provided educational opportunities.
"this seems to me an interesting way to list things. This article is all about the prisoners, why list women as something other than prisoners? Reads very funny to me, replacing men with prisoners? Strange."
I think women were listed separately to emphasize the issue of abortion. All prisoners have rights to certain medical treatment and access, but women have particular reproductive rights that were violated. The abortion issue is why this is relevant to a feminist site. The language issue relates specifically to immigrants. The other, more general treatment and violations relate to all prisoners. Hence, Arpaio's prison has violated rights that pertain exclusively to women, rights held by all prisoners, and rights specifically held by immigrants.
Good article. But please, your offhand comment at the top of the article suggests that chain gangs are wrong for just women and juveniles. Holy shit! You'd expect to find that kind of stuff on the Titanic or some such shit, with the chivalrous men in suits and all that, but . . . wow!