Local Voices on liberty & security.

"Transparency--dialogue, open communications between the government and citizens--is essential." This simple but representative message was what a participant in Iowa wanted delivered to policymakers from the League's national community dialogue project, Local Voices: Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties and Secure Communities. Citizen desire for a transparent and open government is among the project's most important findings.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A complete report of the project's other significant findings, along with the League's recommendations for action, was released to the public, members of Congress, other policymakers and the press on September 7. That event was held on Capitol Hill to coincide with the final stage of Congressional deliberations on the USA PATRIOT Act.

A Critical Public Issue

In the four years since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the United States has had to focus on new approaches to safety and security. Federal, state and local governments have labored to find ways to protect the country and they continue to do so. But this work is vast and complex, and involves numerous decisions and trade-offs. During this time, fundamental questions have arisen about the extent to which increased security protections undermine basic American freedoms and liberties. Can American society retain its openness and basic freedoms and, at the same time, be safe?

One of the most significant actions taken by Congress was passing the USA PATRIOT Act shortly after the September 11 attacks. Parts of that Act--both permanent provisions and those that are scheduled to sunset later this year--have become lightning rods for debate around balancing civil liberties with homeland security. Some assert that certain provisions that expand law enforcement's authority infringe on individuals' rights and liberties as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Others contend that these provisions are necessary to untie the hands of law enforcement so that it is able to conduct investigations and take actions that can ultimately keep us safe and prevent future attacks.

As Congressional leaders debated the reauthorization of the sunsetting provisions this year, public involvement and input on the PATRIOT Act and other aspects of homeland security have been limited. In many ways, "homeland security" has not been treated as a public issue--to be discussed and considered by ordinary citizens--but rather as an issue for the elected leaders and relevant agencies to debate and decide.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The League Steps In

With this situation in mind, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, the citizen education and research arm of the League, considered it critical to learn and share with policymakers the thoughts, concerns and deeply held values that the public has on these topics. With funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Education Fund launched its project entitled "Local Voices: Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties and Secure Communities" in February 2005.

This multi-tier Local Voices project combines one of the League's strongest traditions--convening community dialogues--with established methods of public opinion research. Working with the Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC), a national organization that works to advance deliberative democracy, the LWVEF developed a discussion guide and funded public discussions in ten communities. Each dialogue was hosted by a League or partnership of Leagues, selected through a competitive process. The communities chosen were geographically, ethnically and economically diverse.

In addition, the League hired Lake Snell Perry Mermin/Decision Research (LSPM/DR), a Washington-based polling and research firm, to conduct a series of focus groups around the country and to analyze recent national public opinion data in order to ascertain Americans' views about homeland security and civil liberties.

A number of insights about people's views on civil liberties and homeland security emerged from this combination of public deliberations, focus groups and national public opinion data.

Evolving Attitudes

Most of the public lacks in-depth knowledge about "homeland security." In terms of national priorities, Americans continue to rate fighting terrorism as a top issue for the government to address, but on a personal level, other worries and concerns often take precedence.

While polling reveals a lack of public knowledge about homeland security efforts, the research shows a strong public commitment to civil liberties and freedoms. Participants in the focus groups and public deliberations felt that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and a system of checks and balances are "extremely important to protect." National polling data also reflect the high value Americans place on civil liberties.

Polling indicates a majority of Americans do not consider their civil liberties to be currently under threat. However, the focus groups and public deliberations revealed that as discussions proceeded, the participants became more aware of--and concerned about--how innocent people could be impacted by homeland security measures instituted by the government.

As discussed below under "Value of Public Deliberations," people's opinions move during the process of thoughtful in-depth discussions of homeland security and civil liberties. At the onset of discussions, participants might be unfamiliar with a topic and might not feel a personal relevance. But, they later move to caring about the issue and seeing a personal connection.

The Struggle between Security and Freedom

Participants in the focus groups and public deliberations explored how and where Americans might draw lines between protecting the U.S. from terrorism and preserving civil liberties. In the process, they considered ways that terrorism investigation measures might or might not be perceived to erode civil liberties. The measures discussed were secret searches with delayed notification, expanded law enforcement authority to obtain personal records, and the use of racial or ethnic profiling. The first two measures relate to sections of the USA PATRIOT Act.

One of the themes that arose in these discussions was the importance that participants placed on checks and balances in the U.S. governmental system. As one focus group member put it, "Basically, [the 3 branches of government] are all set up so that ... each section has power over the other two. So, in essence, it doesn't leave power in a single hand because I think, like someone said, 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"

Participants in the focus groups and the deliberations expressed the view that no single body, person or entity should have complete authority. When discussions shifted to increases in law enforcement's authority in terrorism investigations, most people ended up insisting that judges play a traditional oversight role. These checks on law enforcement are essential, they felt, to protect rights and prevent abuses.

Another common theme in the discussions was the notion of a "slippery slope." As tradeoffs in the name of security were discussed, participants wondered what additional policies might be coming next that could infringe on civil liberties. Historical references to McCarthyism and the Japanese internment camps were raised, and amplified concerns about the risks involved in expanding the government's powers in response to terrorism.

Value of Public Deliberations

As people interacted in the focus groups and public deliberations, many felt they knew too little about the issues to evaluate what government is doing to strike a balance between security and civil liberties. They felt they had received too little information from the government and the media. In addition, many participants, particularly those in the public forums, felt that government should become more open when dealing with issues of security and civil liberties, and that the public should play a more active role in the debate around these vital matters.

These insights from the focus groups and public deliberations indicate that national surveys and polling data may not tell the whole story of public opinion when it comes to homeland security and civil liberties issues. What emerges at the end of thoughtful discussions is a much more nuanced, conflicted set of attitudes and concerns than can be captured through polls. In addition, the study found that the more people discussed the issue, the more concerned they became that people's rights and freedoms could be negatively affected by homeland security efforts.

By the end of the focus groups and public deliberations, many participants commented favorably on the value of the thoughtful, give-and-take discussions they had experienced. The opportunity for participants to talk about these issues, hear from others, weigh information and begin to make decisions prompted them to question their own earlier assumptions. They were appreciative of the chance to deliberate issues that had previously been vague and unclear. As a group in Dallas noted, "Spaces of public discourse are being evaporated."

Role of the Public

In the League-sponsored deliberations, it became very clear that participants desired to be more involved in decisions about the issues. At the most fundamental level, they want to know more. Participants expressed concern about too much secrecy in government regarding antiterrorism efforts and how they may be affecting citizens' rights. One question arising from the Seattle public forum was, "Who is watching the watchers?" Many participants called for more openness in government and more information so that they can judge whether or not their civil liberties are being negatively affected.

In the course of these discussions, many participants expressed a willingness to get involved in local efforts. Some wanted an opportunity to weigh in on decisions that are being made by participating in public forums and other activities. As one group of participants in Los Angeles noted, "It is scary that we don't know how homeland security can affect us." Many felt that they need to become more informed and participate in the political process, by voting and communicating with elected officials, in order to hold policymakers accountable for striking the right balance between liberty and security.

League Recommendations

Based upon these key findings and building on the League's own history and values in this area, the League has issued a series of recommendations in its Local Voices report.

1. Challenge to Policymakers--The League calls upon policymakers at all levels to keep the public informed of important decisions that have been made about liberty and security. Policymakers should make more information available about how policies are changing, how they are being implemented, and what impact those changes are having or will have on the public.

2. Challenge to the Public--The League urges all individuals to become more involved and engaged in their communities. From voting, to participating in public forums, to monitoring local government meetings, there is an essential role for every American and a need for their voices to be heard.

3. Challenge to Other Community Institutions--The League sees a critical role for the media, educational institutions and community organizations. We call upon each of these groups to focus more attention on the issues of civil liberties and homeland security, engage more members of the community, and provide more opportunities for vigorous debate and discussion.

A comprehensive listing of the recommendations, the complete findings and the methodology are included in the Local Voices report, now available in the Library at www.lwv.org.

Next Steps

Undertaken in 2005, the Local Voices project combined the League's traditional role of trusted convener with our strong history in the area of civil liberties. In addition to the 10 grantee Leagues, many other Leagues have used and continue to use Local Voices or other materials to hold public forums on this subject. But neither the project nor the report, or even the final Congressional action on the USA PATRIOT Act, represents the end of the need for conversation about this important topic. The issues--and the decisions--involved in the intersection between civil liberties and homeland security will continue to evolve and manifest themselves in various ways. The consequences of the decisions this country makes will have lasting effects on every American, in their lives and communities, and on the nation as a whole

As described above, the League makes a series of recommendations and challenges in the Local Voices report to policymakers at all levels of government, to the media, to community organizations, and to the general public. Essentially, these recommendations boil down to this: When it comes to the critically important relationship between our civil liberties and our nation's security, government openness and public involvement are not just desirable--they are essential.

The League of Women Voters commits itself anew to these goals. Our role as community educators and conveners could not be more vital. And, our experience as a community watchdog can help us to move toward greater government transparency and accountability as well as public input and engagement.

Kelly McFarland Stratman, LWVUS senior manager for state and local Leagues, is the "Local Voices" project manager. Nancy E. Tate is LWVEF director and LWVUS executive director.

The "Local Voices: Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties and Secure Communities" report is available at www.lwv.org. If you wish to receive a copy of the report, please e-mail your request to Danielle Duffy ([e-mail]).

VOTER LINKS

* www.lwv.org.

* www.lakesnellperry.com

* www.studycircles.org

RELATED ARTICLE: LEAGUES IN ACTION: Local Voices

The host Leagues were: the LWV of Baltimore City and the LWV of Baltimore County, Maryland; the LWV of Black Hawk-Bremer Counties, Iowa; the LWV of Brookhaven, New York; the LWV of Columbia-Boone County, Missouri; the LWV of Dallas, Texas; the LWV of Lexington, Kentucky; the LWV of Los Angeles, California; the LWV of Miami-Dade County, Florida; the LWV of North Pinellas County, Florida along with the LWVs of Hillsborough County, Manatee County, and St. Petersburg Area; and the LWV of Seattle, Washington.

The League-hosted public dialogues, using the SCRC method, were designed to engage as many diverse segments of the community as possible and to provide an opportunity for a meaningful exchange of ideas among participants. Each event lasted from four to six hours and was comprised of large-group portions as well as small breakout sessions. Participants were able to voice their opinions through facilitated discussion that was captured by trained volunteer note takers and through the completion of individual participant surveys. In all, 666 participant surveys were collected and analyzed.