One strike, you're out
This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2009) |
One strike, you're out, is a colloquial term for a policy which allows tenants living in housing projects or otherwise receiving housing assistance from the federal government to be
History
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 predated One Strike, You're Out, and outlined eligibility requirements public housing authorities were to use to screen candidates.[1] Legislation mandating the eviction of tenants whose dwelling units are the scene of criminal actions was passed by the United States Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton laid the foundation for the One Strike policy: "I challenge local housing authorities and tenant associations: Criminal gang members and drug dealers are destroying the lives of decent tenants. From now on, the rule for residents who commit drug crimes and peddle drugs should be one strike and you're out. I challenge every state to match federal policy to assure that serious violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentence." The provisions of the law took effect gradually and were essentially fully in place nationwide by 1998.[2]
Components of the policy
The policy was drafted by
In theory, the offending tenant is banned for life from receiving any form of federal public housing assistance, but a mechanism exists for the evictee to apply for reinstatement after three years (with no guarantee that this application or any future such application, will be granted). Individual states are also permitted to opt out of the law or modify its provisions as they see fit such as by imposing a temporary rather than a lifetime ban or limiting the ban to certain offenses.
Challenges to the policy
In January 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the law to be unconstitutional in cases where the criminal wrongdoing in question was actually committed not by the tenant but by a person not legally residing in the unit, such as the tenant's grown child or guest. Rucker v. Davis concerned a 63-year-old grandmother, Pearlie Rucker, who was evicted because a member of her family had incurred a drug conviction. The court held that the federal statute that allowed the Oakland Housing Authority to evict Rucker should not be interpreted to allow the eviction of a tenant merely because of the wrongdoing of another.
However, the Ninth Circuit's
Criticisms
The law has encountered fierce opposition from
Between 2003 and 2007, Representative Barbara Lee of California, attempted to amend One Strike You're Out with legislation intended to address this common criticism. H.R. 1309, H.R. 173 and H.R 1429 would exempt elderly tenants and those who were not aware of such criminal activity, from being evicted or denied admissions into a housing project. All three bills died in committee.
Other applications
Since the passage of the public-housing law that forms the basis for this article, the term "One strike, you're out" has also acquired other popular applications, including the idea that the
See also
References
- ^ Elaine Rivera (March 28, 1996). "One Strike Eviction Rule To Be Enforced In Public Housing". Time. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
- OCLC 57286238.
- ^ David G. Savage (March 27, 2002). "'One Strike' Eviction Policy Affirmed". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2016-02-18.
- ^ Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002).
- ISBN 9781595586438.
- ^ Hannaford, Rachel (September 2003). "Trading Due Process Rights for Shelter: Rucker and Unconstitutional Conditions in Public Housing Leases" (PDF). Journal of Constitutional Law (University of Pennsylvania. 6 (1): 139–162. Retrieved 2016-02-18.