Got an opinion about an issue in the OC? The Orange County Board of Supervisors wants you to keep it to yourself.

Democracy depends on the free flow of ideas, but the board -- one of the most powerful local government bodies -- has adopted rules strictly limiting the opportunity for the public to be heard at its meetings.

On Monday, we sent a letter to the supervisors, stating deep concern that their limits to public participation not only run counter to sound public policy, they also violate the state's Brown Act and the First Amendment.

Instead of the board acknowledging its role as servants of the people, it treats the community as an impediment to conducting its own business. It’s the duty of supervisors to listen to their community; it’s not an inconvenience to be endured, it's their job.

Our letter documented four main ways the board obstructs public input:

Time limits

Last year, the board reduced the amount of time a speaker could comment to three minutes -- for the entire meeting.

The time limit gets worse when numerous people sign up to speak. At one meeting, the board restricted comment to one minute per person, except, it seems, when the board liked what the speaker had to say. Thus, the manager of a company that offers a "VIP wine tour" was allowed to bust the time limit. Meanwhile, those at the meeting to talk about poverty and homelessness were brusquely cut off at the minute mark.

The Brown Act gives the public the right to attend and participate in local government meetings. Government code stemming from that act states that a "local agency may adopt reasonable regulations [...] limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony."

The key word is "reasonable." We believe the restrictions imposed by the board -- and the fact that those rules are unevenly applied -- are hardly reasonable.

Addressing a specific supervisor

The board also prohibits people from directly addressing individual supervisors. Comments must be directed to the “board as a whole through the chair.”

Preventing the public from addressing an individual supervisor directly leads to absurd results. It would prevent a person from responding to a remark made by a particular supervisor, ignores the fact that the supervisors are not a cohesive body and subverts the supervisors’ roles as representatives of specific districts.

Comment cards 

The board requires speakers at meetings to fill out a request form, including the person's name. But under the Brown Act, as the League of California Cities says, "public speakers cannot be compelled to give their name or address as a condition of speaking."

Furthermore, the right to anonymous speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. As one decision put it, "The right to speak anonymously was of fundamental importance to the establishment of our Constitution." 

As a practical matter, individuals might not come forward to speak if they fear disclosing their identity could lead to retaliation or harassment.

Signs 

The board has a rule that bans signs, posters and banners that "could impair the safety of individuals in the event of an emergency." This is not unreasonable, except that the board and sheriff seem to interpret it as no signs at all.

Eve Garrow, our homelessness policy analyst and advocate, took a sign to a recent meeting that said: "Housing First." The handwritten sign was not exactly a flashy bit of craftwork -- it was literally made from cardstock, about 11-inches by 14-inches.

The board has a rule that bans signs, posters and banners that "could impair the safety of individuals in the event of an emergency."

"The sign was so small and flimsy; it would not present a danger to anyone," Garrow said. Nonetheless, she was told she would have to leave it outside the boardroom.

Not only did banning this harmless sign go against the board's own rules, the use of non-disruptive signage clearly falls under First Amendment protections. And, given the board’s approach to public comment, at a large enough meeting, it could be the only way of communicating with the Supervisors.

It's clear to us that the O.C. Board of Supervisors must immediately begin the process of rescinding and replacing these illegal policies and practices, and fundamentally change its approach to the community it purports to serve.

Otherwise, the ACLU SoCal will be forced to consider legal steps. And our dissent will likely take longer than three minutes.

The following op-ed was co-authored by Lindsay Toczylowski, executive director of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and published in the Los Angeles Daily News.

Imagine being ripped from your home or workplace, arrested, thrown in jail and charged under laws so complex they’ve been compared to the tax code.

And you have to face those charges without a lawyer.

That could be the scenario for millions of immigrants under President Trump’s deportation plans. Political leaders in California have refused to permit the use of state and local resources to aid federal immigration agents in deportation actions. But that’s not enough for people who are swept up, caught in the deportation machine, and can’t afford an attorney.

Our immigration system pits unrepresented immigrants against trained federal prosecutors. Navigating the legal maze alone is hard enough, but even more difficult for detained immigrants, who are imprisoned far from their families, deprived of internet access and even affordable phone calls. Not surprisingly, having an immigration lawyer multiplies a person’s chance of winning a deportation case by a factor of 10.

Some elected officials have promised to provide critical funds for deportation defense. Sadly, they have begun caving to political pressure by refusing to make the programs universal.

For example, local politicians are seeking to alter plans for the L.A. Justice Fund, which seeks to ensure that Angelenos have access to effective legal representation to fight their deportation cases. Mayor Eric Garcetti has said he envisions the Justice Fund being used for “good and law-abiding immigrants.” Accordingly, many Angelenos with prior criminal histories, despite being deemed rehabilitated by the state of California, will nonetheless be denied access to an attorney.

It’s a terrible mistake, on many levels, to limit the program in this way. Protecting people from arbitrary decisions by the government is a linchpin of our legal, political and moral systems. Liberty and justice “for all” means that we do not dole out fairness only to those deemed deserving of it. Justice knows no carve-outs.

Denying basic due process to people convicted of crimes also sounds eerily familiar to other policies supported by President Trump. He has advocated measures that rely on racist and xenophobic rhetoric to criminalize our immigrant communities.

The L.A. Justice Fund stands in stark contrast to what New York City is doing. Through its Immigrant Family Unity Project, NYC provides lawyers to low-income people in immigration detention. The program has been successful in part because of its universality. Attorneys are not required to conduct a resource-intensive intake before taking on clients. They therefore don’t have to spend time engaging in record checks or other delay- and cost-inducing complications.

Those supporting the carve-out in the Justice Fund make an argument about resources. While it is fair to be concerned about how best to use limited funds, it is in fact more expensive and time-consuming to require an intake process than to simply take on all cases. It will reduce the program’s efficiency and ultimately result in fewer people being served.

We need our elected officials to make the same commitment and demonstrate strong leadership that sees the inherent humanity, dignity and rights of every person. The L.A. Justice Fund should make sure everyone facing detention and exile has a fair shot at fighting their case. Tragically, if our elected officials yield to political pressure, it won’t.

The following post was originally published on the ACLU Nationwide website and co-authored by Vania Leveille, senior legislative counsel.

Next week, members of Congress will head home to their districts and states for a weeklong recess.  Those brave enough to face their constituents while they are home shouldn't be surprised to find that one of the Republican majority’s top priorities — repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare — is far from popular.

The ACA has played a significant role in ending policies and practices that discriminated against women, LGBT people, people with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities.  It made health care coverage and access fairer and more equitable, and it has helped preserve the life and liberty of millions of people across the country. 

Now, the millions of people who have come to rely on the ACA are making their voices heard at townhall events around the country, urging their representatives not to dismantle this lifesaving law. 

Perhaps you’re one of them. Or perhaps you know someone who is. However the law has impacted you, here are just a few of the many reasons to stand up for the ACA:

• The ACA prohibited insurers from charging women more than men simply because they are women, a discriminatory practice known as “gender rating” that was common prior to the ACA.  Ending this discrimination has lessened the disparity in coverage rates between women and men. Under the ACA, 9.5 million previously uninsured women gained coverage. And the law guaranteed that their plans would cover maternity and newborn care, which were excluded from most individual plans before the ACA.  
• The ACA improved access to Medicaid’s long-term services and supports and expanded the Home and Community Based Services programs. These changes have allowed people with disabilities, who would otherwise languish in nursing homes and psychiatric hospitals, to move into a community where they can work, play, and live, integrated with the rest of society.  These services have helped end some of the segregation and institutionalization of people with disabilities that was once rampant and debilitating. Without these services, the right to liberty and autonomy of people with disabilities would be severely undermined.
• The ACA expanded access to a wide range of birth control services by ensuring that they were covered in every health plan without cost-sharing. We know that increased access to birth control is critical to women’s equality, enabling them to pursue education and careers, to plan whether and when to have children, and to lead full, healthy lives.  The ACA also made sure that a host of other women’s preventive services — like annual wellness exams, breastfeeding support, and STI testing and counseling — were fully covered by insurance plans.
• The ACA contains the first ever federal civil rights provision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, in addition to race, color, national origin, age, or disability, in certain health programs and activities. This provision, Section 1557, has been especially critical in protecting access to reproductive health services for women and preventing discrimination against LGBT people. And equally important, this provision did not include religious exemptions that would have undermined the very purpose of the nondiscrimination provision. 
• The ACA put an end to insurance companies disqualifying millions of people from insurance due to preexisting conditions. Before the ACA became law, insurers could discriminate against a woman who had a cesarean section, breast cancer, pregnancy, and even treatment for domestic violence on the grounds that these constituted preexisting conditions that disqualified her from coverage.   Similarly, if an individual had a disability or chronic condition, they could be denied enrollment or specific benefits based on that preexisting condition.
• The ACA also reduced racial and ethnic disparities in health care, closing the gap in coverage between African-American children and white children and significantly reducing the percentage of uninsured African-American and Hispanic women. It has also made major strides in reducing economic inequality in health care, allowing 31 states and D.C. to expand Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income people.

Today, these gains and protections are at risk. And that is unacceptable.

Up to 32 million people could lose coverage as a result of ACA repeal. Discriminatory policies could be reinstated and would almost certainly threaten the care that women, people with disabilities, and LGBT people need to live lives that are healthy and free. 

That’s why the ACLU will fight against repeal of the ACA.

Speaker Paul Ryan has said that Republicans will release their ACA repeal bill after next week’s recess.  It’s expected that the bill will also defund Planned Parenthood. An entirely separate blog could be written about just how devastating the impact of this would be — but, in short, it would block Medicaid patients from using Planned Parenthood health centers, cutting off their access to preventive care services like breast exams, cancer screenings, STI tests and treatment, and birth control.  As a result, Planned Parenthood health centers, which 2.5 million people rely on for care every year, may be forced to close their doors.  This would have a disastrous impact on health care access, particularly for women and low-income people, across the country—particularly when combined with the impact of ACA repeal.

We can’t let this happen. If you agree, make sure that your members of Congress hear from you.  Next week, they’ll be in the neighborhood.