|
Richard Durbin on Civil Rights
Democratic Sr Senator (IL)
|
|
|
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Durbin scores 60% by the ACLU on civil rights issues
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: - Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
- Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
- Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled. Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization`s preferred position.
Source: ACLU website 02n-ACLU on Dec 31, 2002
Include special-needs people in emergency evacuation plans.
Durbin co-sponsored including special-needs people in emergency evacuation plans
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency.
SPONSOR`S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: One of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society`s most vulnerable members--low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results.
This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the
Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency. It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs?
Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency. What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote.
Source: Emergency planning bill (S.1685) 05-S1685 on Sep 12, 2005
Sponsored bill for a Rosa Parks commemorative postage stamp.
Durbin introduced issuing a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks
EXCERPTS OF RESOLUTION:
- Whereas in 1955, Rosa Parks`s quiet, courageous act changed the United States and its view of African Americans, and redirected the course of history;
- Whereas at that time, in Montgomery, Alabama, as in other cities in the Deep South, the treatment of African Americans on public buses had long been a source of resentment within the African American community;
- Whereas White busdrivers, who were invested with police powers, frequently harassed African Americans;
- Whereas on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks took her seat in the front of the `Colored` section of a Montgomery bus, but was asked, along with 3 other African Americans, to relinquish her seat to a White passenger;
- Whereas although the 3 other African American passengers relinquished their seats, Rosa Parks refused to do so, and was arrested for that refusal;
-
Whereas because Rosa Parks`s act of disobedience launched the Montgomery bus boycott, which lasted for 381 days and propelled the civil rights movement into the national consciousness, she is widely known as the mother of the civil rights movement; and
- Now, therefore, be it Resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the United States Postal Service should issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring the late Rosa Parks.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote.
Source: Rosa Parks Stamp (S.2154/H.R.4343) 05-S2154 on Dec 20, 2005
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
Durbin scores 89% by the HRC on gay rights
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:
- 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
- 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
- 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)
About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org): The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.
Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
Durbin scores 100% by the NAACP on affirmative action
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:
- 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
- 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
- 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NAACP (from their website, www.naacp.org): The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country`s civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels.
From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.
Source: NAACP website 06n-NAACP on Dec 31, 2006
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery.
Durbin introduced recognizing Juneteenth as historical end of slavery
A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
Recognizes the historical significance to the nation, and supports the continued celebration, of Juneteenth Independence Day (June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved African Americans were free). Declares the sense of Congress that:
- history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future; and
- the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States.
Legislative Outcome: House versions are H.CON.RES.155 and H.RES.1237; related Senate resolution S.RES.584 counts for sponsorship. Resolution agreed to in Senate, by Unanimous Consent.
Source: S.RES.584 08-SR584 on Jun 4, 2008
ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.
Durbin signed H.R.3017&S.1584
Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Prohibits related retaliation.
Makes this Act inapplicable to: - religious organizations; and
- the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.
Source: Employment Non-Discrimination Act 09-HR3017 on Jun 24, 2009
Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.
Durbin signed Student Non-Discrimination Act
Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011:- Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
- Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
- Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.
- Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
-
Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney`s fees should they prevail.
- Deems a state`s receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.
Source: HR.998&S.555 11-S0555 on Mar 10, 2011
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.
Durbin co-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act
Congress finds the following: - Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
- Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
- The existence of such pay disparities depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; and undermines women`s retirement security.
- Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. These barriers have resulted because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended.
-
The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
- The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
- With a stronger commitment [to enforcement], increased information on wage data and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
- Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
Source: S.84&H.R.377 13-S0084 on Jan 23, 2013
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.
Durbin co-sponsored Student Non-Discrimination Act
Congressional Summary:
- Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
- Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
- Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct made unlawful under this Act.
- Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
- Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney`s fees should they prevail.
Opponent`s argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could
stifle free speech and even lead to `homosexual indoctrination` in the nation`s classrooms, critics say.
`The real danger is how this will be interpreted,` said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. `The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That`s a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they`re `haters` but because you`re now trying to balance different rights.`
Proponent`s argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): `Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom.`
Source: H.R.1652 / S.1088 13-S1088 on Jun 4, 2013
Let states recognize same sex marriage.
Durbin signed Respect for Marriage Act
Congressional Summary: Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to let states recognize same sex marriage. Defines `marriage` to provide that an individual shall be considered married if that individual`s marriage is valid in the state or country where the marriage was entered into. Removes the definition of `spouse` (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).
Wikipedia and GLAAD history: In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the act`s provisions disallowing same-sex marriages to be performed under federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court case did not challenge Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 declares that all states have the right to deny recognition of the marriage of same sex couples that originated in states where they are legally recognized.
Heritage Foundation
recommendation to vote NO: (3/20/2013): Americans respect marriage, not only as a crucial institution of civil society but the fundamental building block of all human civilization. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government isn`t in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. And contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, and choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship. What`s at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages--and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.
Legislative outcome: Died in Committee (never came to a vote).
Source: S.29 & H.197 17-S0029 on Jan 6, 2015
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
Durbin co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees
Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.
Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee`s domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
The Federal Government is our Nation`s largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their
families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.
I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.
SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007
Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--- Employee health benefits
- Retirement and disability plans
- Family, medical, and emergency leave
- Group life insurance
- Long-term care insurance
- Compensation for work injuries
- Death, disability, and similar benefits
- Relocation, travel, and related expenses.
Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.
Durbin co-sponsored re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women, which shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States:- Section 1.Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
- Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
- Section 3.This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.
Sen. KENNEDY. `It`s a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on
today, since discrimination still continues in many ways.`Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act & the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. More than 60% of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
`A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.
`We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But the women of America deserve no less.`
Source: Equal Rights Amendment (S.J.RES.10/H.J.RES.40) 2007-SJR10 on Mar 29, 2007
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements.
Durbin co-sponsored reinforcing anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements
A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and remedies under civil rights statutes. Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for:
- establishing discrimination based on disparate impact; and
- rights of action and recovery for unlawful discrimination.
- Authorizes civil actions in federal court for discrimination based on disability.
- Repeals provisions limiting the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be awarded in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.
- Revises provisions governing discrimination in the payment of wages, including equal pay requirements.
Source: Civil Rights Act of 2008 (S.2554&H.R.5129) 2008-S2554 on Jan 24, 2008
Honor the 100th anniversary of the NAACP.
Durbin signed bill honoring the 100th anniversary of the NAACP
- Whereas the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, originally known as the National Negro Committee, was founded in New York City on February 12, 1909, the centennial of Abraham Lincoln`s birth, by a multiracial group of activists who met in a national conference to discuss the civil and political rights of African-Americans;
- Whereas the NAACP is the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States;
- Whereas the mission of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination;
- Whereas the NAACP is committed to achieving its goals through nonviolence;
-
Whereas the NAACP advances its mission through reliance upon the press, the petition, the ballot, and the courts, and has been persistent in the use of legal and moral persuasion, even in the face of overt and violent racial hostility;
- Whereas the NAACP has used political pressure, marches, demonstrations, and effective lobbying to serve as the voice, as well as the shield, for minority Americans;
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Congress- Recognizes the 100th anniversary of the historic founding of the NAACP.
- Honors and praises the NAACP on the occasion of its anniversary for its work to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all persons.
Source: SCR.3&HCR.35 2009-SCR3 on Jan 28, 2009
|
|
|
Other candidates on Civil Rights: |
Richard Durbin on other issues: |
IL Gubernatorial: Barack Obama Darren Bailey J.B. Pritzker Jesse Sullivan Paul Schimpf Richard Irvin IL Senatorial: Don Tracy Juliana Stratton Kathy Salvi Peggy Hubbard Raja Krishnamoorthi Robin Kelly Tammy Duckworth
IL politicians
IL Archives
|
Senate races 2026:
AK:
Dan Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Andy Barr(R)
vs.Mary Peltola(D)
AL:
Tommy Tuberville(R,retiring)
vs.Barry Moore(R)
vs.Steve Marshall(R)
vs.Kyle Sweetser(R)
AR:
Tom Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Dan Whitfield(I,withdrew)
vs.Hallie Shoffner(D)
vs.Ethan Dunbar(D,lost primary)
CO:
John Hickenlooper(D,incumbent)
vs.Janak Joshi(R)
vs.Julie Gonzales(D)
vs.Mark Baisley(R)
DE:
Chris Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.Mike Katz(I)
FL:
Ashley Moody(R,appointee)
vs.Alan Grayson(D)
vs.Angie Nixon(D)
vs.Alex Vindman(D)
GA:
Jon Ossoff(D,incumbent)
vs.Buddy Carter(R)
vs.Mike Collins(R)
vs.John F. King(R,withdrew)
IA:
Joni Ernst(R,retiring)
vs.Ashley Hinson(R)
vs.Jim Carlin(R)
vs.Bob Krause(D)
vs.Josh Turek(D)
vs.Zach Wahls(D)
vs.J.D. Scholten(D,withdrew)
ID:
Jim Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.David Roth(D)
vs.Todd Achilles(I)
IL:
Richard Durbin(D,retiring)
vs.Juliana Stratton(D)
vs.Raja Krishnamoorthi(D)
vs.Robin Kelly(D)
vs.Don Tracy(R)
KS:
Roger Marshall(R,incumbent)
vs.Patrick Schmidt(D)
KY:
Mitch McConnell(R,retiring)
vs.Andy Barr(R)
vs.Nate Morris(R)
vs.Daniel Cameron(R)
vs.Charles Booker(D)
vs.Pamela Stevenson(D)
LA:
Bill Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.John Fleming(R)
vs.Julia Letlow(R)
vs.Jamie Davis(D)
MA:
Ed Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.Seth Moulton(D)
vs.John Deaton(R)
ME:
Susan Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Janet Mills(D)
vs.Graham Platner(D)
MI:
Gary Peters(D,retiring)
vs.Haley Stevens(D)
vs.Mallory McMorrow(D)
vs.Mike Rogers(R)
vs.Abdul El-Sayed(D)
vs.Joe Tate(R,withdrew)
|
MN:
Tina Smith(D,retiring)
vs.Angie Craig(D)
vs.David Hann(R)
vs.Peggy Flanagan(D)
vs.Royce White(R)
vs.Michele Tafoya(R)
MS:
Cindy Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Scott Colom(D)
vs.Ty Pinkins(D then I)
MT:
Steve Daines(R,retiring)
vs.Kurt Alme(R)
vs.Reilly Neill(D)
vs.Seth Bodnar(I)
NC:
Thom Tillis(R,retiring)
vs.Michael Whatley(R)
vs.Roy Cooper(D)
vs.Wiley Nickel(D,running for D.A.)
NE:
Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent)
vs.Dan Osborn(I)
NH:
Jeanne Shaheen(D,retiring)
vs.Chris Pappas(D)
vs.John Sununu(R)
vs.Scott Brown(R)
NJ:
Cory Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Justin Murphy(R)
NM:
Ben Ray Lujan(D,incumbent)
vs.Matt Dodson(D)
OH:
Jon Husted(R,appointee)
vs.Sherrod Brown(D)
OK:
Markwayne Mullin(R,appointed to Cabinet)
vs.Troy Green(D)
OR:
Jeff Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Jo Rae Perkins(R)
RI:
Jack Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Connor Burbridge(D)
SC:
Lindsey Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Catherine Fleming Bruce(D)
vs.Paul Dans(R)
vs.Annie Andrews(D)
SD:
Mike Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Julian Beaudion(D)
vs.Brian Bengs(I)
TN:
Bill Hagerty(R,incumbent)
vs.Diana Onyejiaka(D)
TX:
John Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Ken Paxton(R)
vs.James Talarico(D)
vs.Wesley Hunt(R,lost primary)
vs.Jasmine Crockett(D,lost primary)
VA:
Mark Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.David Williams(R)
WV:
Shelley Moore Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Tom Willis(R)
vs.Jeff Kessler(D)
vs.Zach Shrewsbury(D)
WY:
Cynthia Lummis(R,retiring)
vs.Harriet Hageman(R)
vs.Reid Rasner(R)
vs.James Byrd(D)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Congressional Votes (analysis)
Congressional Ratings
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Page last updated: Apr 12, 2026; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org
|