Sen. Patrick Leahy

by Jeremy Leaming

In 1994 federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle banded together to advance legislation aimed at tackling the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence. It was and remains a noble goal. Indeed it represented one of the more communitarian pieces of legislation of the time. The nation it seemed, even if fleeting, to be concerned about bettering the quality of lives of some of the nation’s most vulnerable, as opposed to catering solely to the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful.

Today reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), as noted on this blog, is mired in mindless obstructionism. The reauthorization measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, and finally passed the Senate today on a 68-31 vote. But House Republicans are itching to keep obstructionism alive, promising their own reauthorization measure.

Though the Justice Department has reported a decline in domestic violence, a 2011 National Census of Domestic Violence Services revealed that more than 67,000 victims of domestic violence received federal help in a single day.

Moreover since enactment of the VAWA it has become apparent that services need to be extended, such as free legal services to victims, authority for Native American officials to respond to abuse of Indian women by those not covered by Indian jurisdiction, more help to undocumented people who are victims of domestic violence, and to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender victims of domestic violence.  

It is this effort to help more people that spurred opposition. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) complained about the reauthorization measure’s additional services. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said the bill’s efforts to expand the reach of domestic violence programs were meant to “invite opposition.”

Right-wing lobbying groups have also ramped up opposition to reauthorization. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said the VAWA reauthorization bill “does real violence to the budget and individual freedom.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Tea Party favorite, took to the Senate floor to declare that he was not voting against helping victims of domestic violence. He said he was voting against “big government and inefficient spending ….”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who introduced the reauthorization measure with Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), lauded today’s Senate vote, and said he hoped the House “will soon consider this legislation ….”

But The Associated Press reported recently that a group of Republicans in the House is working to create a different reauthorization bill. It would likely strip the Senate’s efforts to help undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, and gays, lesbians and transgenders.

During the Senate’s drawn-out effort to reauthorize the VAWA, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told The New York Times that the Republican opposition “is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on the rights and services to women. We’ve seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services from women. This seems to be one more thing.”

By Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Sen. Harkin is Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

When Jack Gross, at age 55, was brazenly demoted and his job was given to a much younger, less qualified person, he never imagined he would become a central national figure in the fight against age discrimination. But that is exactly what happened to Jack, who worked for nearly a quarter century as a claims adjuster for FBL Financial in West Des Moines. He was a model employee, with performance reviews in the top three percent of the company for 13 consecutive years.

Over four decades ago, expressly to prevent this kind of discrimination, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Very simply, that act made it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age.

When Jack sought enforcement of his rights, a jury of fellow Iowans readily found in his favor. But, in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled against Jack and other older workers. A narrow majority on the Court didn't just rewrite the rules, it arbitrarily rewrote the law.

The Court overturned established precedent that had applied standards of proof the Supreme Court first set out in interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court held that because Congress did not amend the ADEA to include this standard when it codified the standard for race, sex, national origin, and religion claims as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the standard did not apply to age claims. As a result of this discrepancy, the opinion has also had reverberations in a wide range of civil cases in addition to age discrimination, including discrimination based on disability.   

The good news is that the Court's arbitrary ruling is not the final say. Congress has the power to step in with a legislative remedy. That is what it did when the Court weakened the rights of women in the workplace. Congress passed and the President signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.