The statement about voting rights is particularly rich, given that the ACLU just won a lawsuit in Seattle to
remove Charter Amendment 29 from the ballot for this fall's election.
https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattlekin...Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way:
> While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...)
The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing.
The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team
In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes...
But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises.
So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.