The ACLU of Hawaii obviously doesn’t have much to do
Posted on February 2, 2007
KAUAI Garden Island News: ACLU monitors chief search
The American Civil Liberties Union will be keeping a watchful eye on Kaua‘i County’s police chief search, an attorney for the nonprofit group said yesterday.
Though the ACLU does not have plans to sue the county over its one-year Hawai‘i residency requirement for police chief candidates, its ears perked up when the search began.
“I think that while it’s important for residency to be a factor in the ultimate choice, it is unconstitutional to preclude all individuals outside of Hawai‘i from the opportunity of even applying,†said Lois Perrin, legal director of the ACLU Hawai‘i.
Though police commissioner Thomas Iannucci has said the county would benefit from a police chief who is familiar with local customs and culture, Perrin said the argument that candidates should be local from the get-go has been quashed in the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
“I think there are all sorts of intangible factors regarding candidates,†Perrin said. “The fact that somebody who grew up in Po‘ipu and knows the local culture could be a plus. But just because someone is from California doesn’t mean they’re not bringing something to the table.â€
“There is nothing in the law that would prohibit the factors of local candidates once you get a qualified pool. But this cuts the candidates off before they have the opportunity to even apply.â€
The law in question has been interpreted by the County Attorney’s office to mean that a June 22 federal ruling — that Hawai‘i-residency requirements for government jobs are unconstitutional — doesn’t apply to department heads, namely, the future police chief.
The ruling, made by Federal Court Judge David Ezra, was in response to an ACLU class-action suit brought forth last year on behalf of disgruntled Mainland applicants who were not considered for Hawai‘i jobs.
“We brought the lawsuit on behalf of a number of non-residents who were rejected on the basis that they were not current residents,†Perrin said. “Nobody looked at their qualifications or resumes, so they were rejected solely based on non-residency.â€
Um, no, they were rejected because one of the qualifications is residency, so obviously “non-residency” is a disqualifier.
Why would the ACLU even get involved in this? And what kind of idiot argument is it that a local police department is constitutionally prohibited from requiring its candidates for police chief to be local residents…for ONE STINKIN’ YEAR?!?! No one has a “right” to be considered for any job anywhere if she doesn’t meet the reasonable criteria for consideration. It seems pretty reasonable for a town to decide that it will accept only local candidates for a top law enforcement position. (No trolls, this isn’t the same as race or sex being a disqualifier, so don’t even try it.) I guess in-state tuition is unconstitutional…except of course if it is given to illegal aliens.
Yet another example of the ACLU’s baseless meddling in the affairs of local communities.
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “The ACLU of Hawaii obviously doesn’t have much to do”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Darn that constitution, with its privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids residency requirements for employment in jobs like this. Darn that Fourteenth Amendment, and darn the liberal Supreme Court which has interpreted that amendment to give us the right to travel from state to state for OVER A CENTURY!
Here’s an idea. If you don’t like it, Glib, amend the constitution.
Don’t you get all up in arms when the ACLU selectively defends amendments to the constitution? Here they’re all over the 14th amendment and you want them to stop defending it? Why? Because they’ve given short shrift to the 2nd? Or is it because you don’t understand what’s going on in the 14th amendment?
Here’s more information on why (and when) residency requirements are unconstitutional:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/33.html#t10
Because they already won this argument once. The County Attorney’s office may be correct that the June 22 ruling doesn’t apply to department heads but that’s far from a given.
1. Because it effectively prohibits outside candidates. There aren’t many people that could/would move all the way out there and live underemployed for a year just to be considered if an opening comes up.
2. And because there’s no compelling reason for it to be a requirement.
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to hire someone, but employment law in most (all?) states is very complicated. The short form, though, is that you can’t list something as a requirement unless it truly is a requirement. My guess is that most experienced police chiefs could step into that position and do a capable job. I’m sure prior residency has value, but so does attractiveness and you can’t make that a requirement either.
You could make a case for that, but you probably wouldn’t win. In-state tuition is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy. It’s quite understandable why you’d want to limit that to families that have been paying into the system.
I would say the June 22 ruling provides a fair basis for this “meddling.”
The aclu should be brought up on charges under the rico statue
I’m an ACLU supporter, but I agree with you on this one. There’s no point in getting involved. If the city council (voted in by citizens) wants this as a requirement, there’s no reason they shouldn’t have it. For the guy above harping on the 14th amendment, non-residents is not a protected class under ther 14th amendment for government jobs. If he was excluded because he’s black, or a woman, or a pagan, that would be a 14th amendment case. In all honesty, the big court hasn’t even said if it’s willing to protect homosexuals. We’ll have to wait for that one to come up (and all its implications for homosexual marriages). If this policy is really excluding that many “qualified” canidates, and the chief they end up with is an idiot, then the city council will probably change it.
What I don’t like is the author of this blog equating this branch of ACLU HI with the ACLU in general. Where I live (phoenix) there are four separate branches just in the county: there’s ACLU national, ACLU AZ, ACLU ASU, and ACLU ASU Law. Now obviously this branch has WAY too muh time on their hands. But the ones deserving of criticism are the judges who didn’t set clear enough standards on when a residency requirement is constitutional and when it isn’t. What’s next, a US Senator from HI who lives in Bumsville, ID?
Wulf, why don’t you read the link I posted. You are wrong. That’s pretty much what the Hawaii court said a few months ago:
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file134_24061.pdf
And Wulf, the right to travel is a fundamental right, Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868), one that deserves protection. 139 years the right to travel has been protected and you don’t think the ACLU should be involved when it’s infringed upon?