Have You Hired a Criminal Today?

What do elections in Washington state, census workers, and employment discrimination have in common?

Criminals. Specifically, convicted felons.

There's a new trend emerging in our country, a trend that is as misguided as it is dangerous. The trend is to file lawsuits challenging the use of criminal background checks as discriminatory, based on the theory that certain minorities are represented disproportionately among convicted felons.

The scary thing is that some of these challenges are actually succeeding.

Washington state's constitution bars convicted felons from voting. Six felons, who also happen to be minorities, claimed that although this felon disenfranchisement law may not have been enacted with a discriminatory purpose, it interacts with a racially discriminatory criminal justice system and, as a result, racial minorities are disproportionately denied the right to vote.

The trial court twice dismissed these claims, but twice the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (the most reversed circuit court in the country) reversed the district court. The second time, the appeals court ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the "the discriminatory impact of Washington's felon disenfranchisement is attributable to racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system" and therefore violates the federal Voting Rights Act. You can read the whole sordid mess here. (The judges in the 2-1 majority were both Carter appointments. Read more about the Carter legacy here.)

Across the country, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the U.S. Census Bureau unlawfully discriminates against minorities in its hiring process by conducting criminal background checks and requiring applicants to provide information regarding their arrest and conviction histories. So, in the view of the plaintiffs, there is nothing wrong with permitting murderers and rapists to go door-to-door to count heads, all in the name of good government.

This approach will soon spread to the employment context. In fact, there have been a few such scattered cases over the last five or six years, but that trickle will soon become a serious wave. Aside from attempting to force employers to disregard criminal history as a factor in hiring decisions, this trend will put employers in a terrible fix, due to another social justice-inspired concept, negligent hiring.

Although they may vary somewhat from state to state, negligent hiring claims generally go something like this -- (1) an employee performs a bad act; (2) the employee is inherently unfit or has committed previous acts from which unfitness can be inferred; (3) the employer has actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness; and (4) injury results from the employee's actions. Where an employer fails to perform an adequate background check and, as a result, hires an unfit -- perhaps even violent or criminal -- employee, you have a classic example of negligent hiring.

When this latest trend takes hold, however, the employer will be faced with the Morton's fork of either performing background checks, thus risking a discrimination lawsuit, or not performing such checks and risking negligent hiring claims.

This is what happens when liberals and the courts attack everything -- soon the attacks are turned upon themselves. But the trial lawyers don't care because they don't get hurt. Employers get hurt, and when employers suffer, so do their employees or the prospective employees who will never get hired.

The most galling aspect of this entire mess is that it centers around and is intended to benefit people who deliberately broke serious laws and were convicted. Why bother sending them to prison? If employers cannot choose not to hire convicted felons and states cannot bar them from voting, is there any basis on which choices can be made? And what's next -- you can't discriminate on the basis of education level? experience? work history? Aren't all of these susceptible to the same challenges as criminal history?

In National Review's first issue, William F. Buckley said of his creation, "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." To the trial lawyers and all those who so diligently work to make sure convicted felons stop by our houses and populate our workplaces, I say, Stop!

A National Day of -- oh, never mind.

A Wisconsin federal court judge's recent decision that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional has caused a lot of people to sit up and take notice about just what is going on in our nation's courtrooms. For a look at this case and others, with a clue as to a common factor, go here.

Removing the Barriers (to Voter Fraud)

Voting used to be treasured as a right and a privilege. Whenever I vote, I feel a genuine sense of pride at participating in the democratic process, and I made sure to take my children with me whenever I could in order to instill that same feeling in them.

Now, it seems like voting is becoming just another opportunity to scam the public.

The dregs of ACORN, considered criminals in days gone by, are now embraced by our federal government and given hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. Remember, this is the same group that, in concert with the Ohio Secretary of State (a Democrat) and a federal judge (appointed by Clinton), effected a settlement by which the homeless were permitted to use park benches(!) as their addresses for voter registration purposes. ACORN is being investigated or has been charged with voter fraud in 14 states. The U.S. Department of Justice has now ordered that states are not permitted to verify voter citizenship.

Still, all that is happening outside Michigan, right? Wrong. Not only has our legislature decided to endorse "no reason" absentee voting, but two legislators are trying to further dilute any protections we might have against voter fraud.

HB 4993, introduced by Reps. Melton (D-Pontiac) and Johnson (D-Detroit), would permit anyone to register to vote at any city, county, or township office anywhere in Michigan. The office receiving the application is required to process it and give the voter a receipt for it, then send the application to the city, county, or township where the applicant resides.

Why even require voter registration anymore? If we are going to allow people to register wherever and whenever they want, and if people can use park benches as addresses, how is it possible to detect voter fraud? What is to stop a person from selecting park benches in a dozen different locations, driving around the state to register, and then voting absentee in each location? Internet voting and same-day registration will only compound the fraud.

And is in-district registration really an issue? I called Rep. Melton's office and was told the purpose of the bill was to "make it easier to register" but not to encourage voter fraud. The example used was of college students who may find it difficult to register at home.

Oh, please.

This is the most mobile society in history (at least it is until our governor and our president succeed in destroying the automobile history). If a person wants to register and vote, he can, and there is no need to degrade the process into a free-for-all.

My personal view is that voting should be made more difficult. Requiring photo identification is a terrific first step, and citizenship checks should be next.

I worked the polls in a heavily Democratic precinct during the last presidential election. No one complained about the photo i.d. requirement, but there was one glaring example of why voting should be more - not less - difficult. A middle aged man entered, went through the process of checking in, and was handed his ballot. Rather than proceed to the booth, he stopped and asked, "Who's going to help me with this?" When no one responded immediately (probably from the surprise of it), he again demanded, this time more loudly, "Who's going to help me vote?"

With voters like this, who's going to help the rest of us?