Daniel Akaka on Civil Rights Democratic Jr Senator (HI)

Opposed the Patriot Act renewal on civil liberty grounds

Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

1. the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
2. the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
3. abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
4. destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Proponents of the Resolution say:
• Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
• In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
• 48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
• I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
• Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
• I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
• Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Proponents of the motion say:
• If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
• Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.

  The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.

Opponents of the motion say:
• This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.

  Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

• Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
• This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.

Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.

Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.

Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.

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.

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.

Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

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)

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.

Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

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)

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.

Recognize 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:

1. history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future; and
2. the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States.

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.

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:
1. religious organizations; and
2. the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.

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.

Provide 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.

Reinforce 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:

1. establishing discrimination based on disparate impact; and
2. 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.

Investigate deportation of Japanese during WWII.

A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent during WWII.
• Establishes the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese descent.
• Directs the Commission to extend the study of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate U.S. relocation, internment, and (in some cases) deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent held in U.S. custody from December 1941 through February 1948; and recommend appropriate remedies.

Based on a preliminary study published in December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
1. During World War II, the United States expanded its internment program and national security investigations to conduct the program and investigations in Latin America
2. Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1941 through 1948.
3. Those men, women, and children either were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment by local police, and sent to the United States for internment; or in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily entered internment camps to remain with their arrested husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
4. Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the individuals arrived in the United States.
5. Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.