President Clinton is fighting hard to preserve funding for the Legal
Services Corporation. He and First Lady Hillary Clinton insist that federal
legal aid is essential to preserving the poor’s access to justice. Yet,
on a number of important issues, legal services lawyers litigate against
Clinton’s stated policy objectives such as promoting welfare reform, expelling
criminals from public housing and requiring school uniforms for public
school students. This litigation not only violates restrictions against
political advocacy but in many cases directly hurts the real interests
of the poor.
Welfare Reform
On August 22, President Clinton initiated the most sweeping welfare
reform in 60 years when he approved legislation developed by Congress that
would end the entitlement nature of welfare, impose time limits for recipients,
require work and transfer responsibility to the states. The fact
that a Democratic President approved dramatic welfare reform -- albeit
reluctantly -- powerfully demonstrates the bipartisan consensus that the
current system is a disastrous failure. However, while Clinton supports
reform he still insists on funding the Legal Services Corporation which
is adamantly opposed to any reform. Just last year, Legal Services
of New Jersey tried to overturn the “Family Cap” provision, the centerpiece
of many state welfare reforms, that eliminates increases in AFDC payments
to women who have additional children while on welfare. Likewise, Wisconsin
which has led the way in developing innovative welfare reforms has drawn
a multitude of legal services suits. So strident are they in their
efforts to subvert Wisconsin’s reforms that the state’s Health and Human
Services Secretary angrily accused legal services of being “far left advocates”
who are “determined to shut down Governor Tommy Thompson’s welfare reform
agenda.” Legal services is especially hostile to work requirements, a key
component of the Clinton-backed welfare plan. In 1993, LSC tried to stop
California’s work program for AFDC recipients on the grounds that making
welfare recipients work somehow violated federal laws against human experimentation.
In Michigan, LSC lawyers similarly tried to stop Gov. Engler from expelling
82,000 able-bodied adults from the welfare rolls, claiming that it was
unconstitutional to deprive employable adults of welfare benefits.
See C.K. v. Shalala, 883 F.Supp. 991 (US Dist. Ct.) 1995
Criminals in Public Housing
This year, Clinton announced a new policy to clean up crime in the nation’s public housing. Called “One-Strike-and-You’re-Out,” the plan would reward with increased aid those public housing projects which evict tenants accused of committing one crime. In justifying the policy, Clinton said: “There is no reason in the world to put the rights of a criminal before those of a child who wants to grow up safe or a parent who wants to raise that child in an environment where the child is safe.” However, LSC lawyers have been especially active in defending the rights of drug dealers and other dangerous criminals to stay in public housing. Just this year, the Legal Aid Society of New York failed in its attempt to stop the New York City Housing Authority from implementing a new eviction policy designed to reduce the time it takes to evict violent criminals from as much three years to 3 or 4 months. Legal Aid vigorously fought for the rights of accused criminals to stay in public housing even though the expedited eviction policy had the overwhelming support of the city’s public housing tenant associations -- the people legal services is supposed to be helping in the first place. Despite the recent adoption of restrictions to prevent LSC-funded lawyers from representing drug criminals, the Corporation has skirted the restriction through a loophole-riddled regulation. Clearly contravening the intent of congressional law, the LSC reg will allow legal services lawyers to represent family members who knew about and financially benefited from illegal drug activity as long as they weren't specifically charged with the crime.
See John F. Harris, “Clinton Links Housing Aid to Eviction
of Crime Suspects,” The Washington Post, March 29, 1996, pg. A14
School Uniforms
In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton strongly endorsed
the idea of public school students wearing uniforms as an effective way
to reduce violence and improve discipline and learning in troubled schools.
The Administration’s rousing endorsement stems from the example of Long
Beach, California city schools. Two years ago, Long Beach required all
elementary and middle school students to wear uniforms in response to parental
concerns about their children being attacked for inadvertently wearing
gang paraphernalia. The uniform code has been tremendously successful according
to school administrators and academic researchers. Fighting has dropped
51%, drug cases are down 69% and sex offenses down 74%. So successful has
Long Beach been in dramatically improving the learning atmosphere through
uniforms that six other states have passed laws allowing public school
districts to implement system-wide uniform policies. In a recent visit
to Long Beach schools, Clinton said, “The entire United States of America
is in your debt because you took the first step to show that elementary
and middle school students could wear uniforms to class, reduce violence,
reduce truancy, reduce disorder and increase learning.” Too bad the LSC
didn’t agree with their presidential benefactor. The Legal Aid Foundation
of Long Beach, an LSC grantee, teamed up with the ACLU to sue the uniform
code. Legal Aid lawyers argued that the mandatory uniform requirement was
illegal because it discriminated against the small percentage of
low-income parents who couldn’t afford uniforms. However, because the school
district in fact went to great lengths to secure donated uniforms for needy
families, Legal Aid’s argument came down to the contention that the district
didn’t do enough to advertise their availability. The case was settled
out of court and Long Beach’s uniform policy was left standing.
See James Gerstenzang, “Clinton Praises School Uniform Pacesetter,”
Los Angeles Times, February 25 1996, pg. A15