Mediaboss Marketing

A leading expert on anti-Semitism has said that university campus groups "have the right to exclude Zionists." Writing in the Times of Israel, Kenneth Stern argued that, although it may be "hurtful" and counterproductive, the right of progressive groups to exclude advocates of the occupation state must be respected. Stern is the US attorney who took the lead in drafting the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

His intervention follows the growing debate around the exclusion of Zionist students from progressive spaces. Founded on the ethno-nationalist ideals of Zionism, Israel has long been viewed in progressive circles as a racist country that advocates settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing. This view has become more widespread in recent times after major human rights groups accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.

With Zionism increasingly being viewed as a racist, imperialist ideology, groups advocating for equality, human rights, the rights of minorities and progressive values, in general, are more frequently excluding supporters of Israel from their spaces. This has happened despite protests that Zionism and affinity with the apartheid state are intrinsic parts of Jewish identity. Critics, however, have long questioned this argument and rejected the claim that a political ideology should be treated as a "protective category" in the same way as gender, religion and race are.

The recent row over the IHRA definition is largely a demand by pro-Israel groups for wider society to support their claim that Zionism and support for the state of Israel be accepted as such a category. It is a form of exceptionalist pleading which is rejected wholesale when other groups in society make similar demands. For instance, the political ideology of "Islamism" or the desire to create an "Islamic State" are not only violently opposed and condemned, but any Muslim who insists that their political views and religion be granted special protection is also dismissed out of hand, and rightly so.

A similar example would be if India's far-right BJP government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and advocates of Hindutva, said that it is racist and anti-Hindu to question their demand to create an exclusively Hindu state. As is becoming increasingly clear, in their quest to refashion India as a Hindu state, Hindutva extremists have placed themselves on a collision course with the country's secular constitution. No amount of special pleading that India is the only Hindu state in the world should make any difference, but the goal is still no less than the reformation of India as an ethno-religious state affording special rights and privileges to Hindus within a multi-tier system of citizenship. The model state that such Hindus aspire to replicate is Israel. The parallel between the two ideologies is a powerful illustration of the special status granted to Zionism.

Israel and its supporters are granted a privilege that is not extended to any other political community. Public bodies and private institutions across the Western world have not only agreed to their demand, but have also adopted the supposedly "working definition" of anti-Semitism produced by the IHRA that conflates legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jew racism.

Although Stern does not compare Zionism and its equivalent ideologies around the world, he insists on treating Israel and its founding ideology in the same way as any other political ideology and its followers. The right to criticise freely without being labelled a racist should be preserved, he maintains. He admits that Zionism itself is a contested term but, nevertheless, the feelings about what Zionism means personally for some Jews should not be an excuse to crack down on freedom of speech by labelling people "anti-Semites" for criticising Israel's founding ideology.

Commenting on the different perceptions of Zionism and the reasons why progressives exclude supporters of Israel, Stern said: "Some progressive students may understand Zionism as a term for Israel's treatment of Palestinians; others may understand Zionism as most Jewish students do the right of Jews to self-determination in their historic homeland."

He explained that a significant and growing number of Jews are "agnostic" about Zionism or are anti-Zionist, which appears to suggest that Zionism and affinity with Israel is not as important to Jewish identity as pro-Israel groups claim.

MEMO In Conversation: 'Whatever happened to anti-Semitism?': MEMO in conversation with Antony Lerman

"Anti-Zionist students may feel that letting a Zionist work among them is the equivalent of overlooking whether someone is a Nazi," said Stern, "just as some Jewish organisations might feel that letting Jews in who support the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is overlooking anti-Semitism." He disagrees with both assertions, but people on campus must be allowed to define their politics.

Wrestling with the central question of the piece in the Times of Israel whether it is anti-Semitic to exclude Zionists from progressive spaces Stern defends the right of progressive groups to be selective. "If a group decides that in order to be a member, one has to have a particular view of Israel and Zionism, the right to make that decision must be respected. Those not invited in, even though exclusion hurts, can find other ways to express themselves, including by creating new groups and coalitions."

Stern has been critical of the way that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been employed by pro-Israel groups against critics of the apartheid state. His latest intervention is another defence of freedom of association and speech against what many say is a crackdown on pro-Palestine voices and the dangers of conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

"Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently anti-Semitic and must be suppressed," wrote Stern in the Times of Israel two years ago. Concerns raised by him then highlight the claim that the fight against anti-Semitism, as American Jewish commentator Peter Beinart believes, has "lost its way".

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Read more here:
An anti-Semitism expert says that progressives 'have the right to exclude Zionists' - Middle East Monitor

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez.

We turn now to look at a possible delay, by months or even years, of the FBIs investigation into whether former President Donald Trump violated the Espionage Act and presidential records laws, and whether he obstructed justice to cover up those crimes. The delay comes after a federal judge agreed Monday to appoint an independent arbiter known as a special master to review whether FBI agents properly seized thousands of classified documents from Trumps Mar-a-Lago home on August 8th. U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with Trumps lawyers that the Justice Department must halt its review of the documents recovered by agents, many of which were marked Top Secret. The Washington Post reports some of the documents were so sensitive that even many senior national security officials would not normally have access to them. Judge Cannon was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2020 by then-President Donald Trump. She was confirmed nine days after Trump lost the 2020 election.

On Tuesday, former Attorney General William Barr told Fox News the Justice Department should appeal Judge Cannons decision.

WILLIAM BARR: The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it. Its deeply flawed in a number of ways. I dont think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up. But even if it does, I dont see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other words, I dont think it changes the ball game so much as maybe well have a rain delay for a couple of innings.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is set to resume hearings later this month.

For more, were joined by Elie Mystal, The Nation's justice correspondent, whose recent piece looking this and several other investigations into Trump is headlined Trump Is a CriminalWill Any of These 4 Investigations Snare Him? He's also author of the best-selling book Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guys Guide to the Constitution.

Elie, welcome back to Democracy Now! Why dont you start off by laying out these four cases or investigations into Trump? Because I think many people theres so much thats happening, its very hard for people to figure out what is going on right now, and maybe even why he hasnt been charged.

ELIE MYSTAL: OK, Amy. Lets do this lightning round style. Case number one is the one that youve been talking about. Its the espionage case. Trump stole documents, top-secret documents, classified documents, from the National Archives, put them in his basement. That is straight-up illegal. The Justice Department is investigating him for that theft. Doesnt matter if he declassified the documents or not, because he had sensitive national defense information. Well see how that goes, now that hes gotten it in front of his handpicked justices who are biased for him, right? So, thats bucket number one.

Bucket number two is the one that weve been talking about since January 6, 2020. Its the insurrection that he probably should be held responsible for, if not leading, certainly encouraging. Right? We have the January 6th committee thats investigating that, but we also know that the previous hearings over the summer from the January 6th select committee kind of lit a fire under the Department of Justice, pointed them in some new directions. We know that the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was particularly explosive. So, the Justice Department is arguably continuing investigation into Trumps role in January 6 and all the little tendrils of that, right? Theres the actual coup and insurrection. Theres the fake electors plot. Theres the obstruction of justice. Theres a lot of things wrapped up in January 6th.

But those two buckets are at the federal level. At the state level, he has more legal exposure. Theres the New York state investigation that is led by Attorney General state Attorney General Tish James thats looking into financial crimes and misdeeds from Trump Organization. There are allegations dating back to Michael Cohen, Trumps former fixer, about when Trump devaluing assets when it comes time to pay taxes and inflating assets when it comes time to get a loan. So, that investigation is ongoing.

And then, finally, we have the state of Georgia investigation, led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. She is looking into Trumps apparent attempt at election fraud and obstruction of justice in Georgia specifically. Weve all heard the incriminating phone call, Donald Trump asking Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Georgia to find him 11,000 votes. We know Lindsey Graham has been asked to testify. We also know that the judicial system is protecting Lindsey Graham, as well. But we know that investigation is ongoing. And as you pointed out this morning, theres even new evidence implicating Sidney Powell in some stuff. So, that, I think, is still maybe the most likely thing to land Trump in serious legal trouble, just because we literally already have him on tape committing the election crime, if I can say it that way.

But those are the four kind of main ones that I know about. Lets never forget that, you know, Trump commits crime like other people breathe, and so who knows what else is lying just beneath the surface? Those are the four that are kind of most furthest along in terms of investigating the former president.

JUAN GONZLEZ: But, Elie, isnt there a danger because, as you mentioned, all of these different investigations, one, that it feeds into a narrative by many Trump supporters, and even some who may not be that supportive of him, that the government is out to get him? And also, isnt the issue that all of these investigations and, before that, the two impeachments, they keep Trump in the news, so that hes constantly the story, whether or not hes actually officially running for office, and the danger of a backfire, come the next presidential election, about these investigations, that all operate at a snails pace because of the ability of anyone with a lot of money to gum up the works in terms of legal challenges? Your thoughts about the potential backfire of so much effort but no real indictments yet?

ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah, Juan, well, number one, I dont really concern myself what cultists say in defense of their cult. Right? Like, I get that the cult of personality that is Donald Trump creates various false narratives about whats happening and the persecution thats happening to their dear leader. And theyre all wrong. Theyre all dumb and wrong, and so I dont worry myself with what dumb and wrong people think about these investigations, I mean, because we cant, because we cant live at their speed. Right? We have to, like, do what is right regardless of what the cultists say, right?

In terms of doing what is right, thats kind of how I get to your second point. Yes, there is a lot of investigations going on, and, yes, that creates almost a spigot of potential criminality, but whats the alternative? The problem here is that Trump potentially committed many, many, many crimes. And allowing him to get off scot-free for any of the crimes, much less all of the crimes, is the bigger danger to democracy and to kind of faith in American government. If a person like Trump can get away with stealing an election in Georgia and committing financial crimes in New York and leading an insurrection and putting forward fake electors and violating the Espionage Act, if he can get away with all of that, then we are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of power. We are a nation that exists on the whims of the powerful people and their judges. So its almost like we have to pick which nation we want to live in. If we want to live in a nation of laws, then we have to its not an option then we have to prosecute Trump for the crimes he appears to have committed. There is no other option that still involves us living in a nation under the rule of law.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And speaking of a nation under the rule of law, in your book, Allow Me to Retort, you write about the structural problems of our Constitution that, to you, raise serious questions about the ability of our nation to function as a democracy. Im wondering if you could talk about some of those structural issues.

ELIE MYSTAL: Well, I think, look at what the Trump judge did in the espionage case, right? Look at Aileen Cannon. The idea that judges are apolitical, impartial arbiters is wrong. Its always been wrong. Its always been a legal fiction. We know that judges are political actors. If they werent, you wouldnt have wildly different judges nominated by each of the different political parties, right? We know theyre not impartial. We just havent been told that, because, for the most part, their bias and their prejudice has been towards white, cis, hetero, male people, right? And so we act like thats not a bias. But that is a bias. And thats kind of baked into the system.

And these people are also careerists. People keep saying, like, Oh, the point of lifetime appointments is that once a judge is in, they dont have to concern themselves with the political machinations of the country. We know that not to be true, right? Judge Aileen Cannon is a district court judge now. Does she want to be a circuit court judge someday? Does she want to be on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals someday? Does she want to go on the Supreme Court someday? Well, if she does, which wouldnt be surprising to me, well, making decisions in concert with the Republican agenda, especially given Trumps, again, Svengali-like hold over the Republican Party, seems to make sense.

So, when you look at the structure of our judicial system, it is still primarily based on people, and those people can be biased. Those people can be prejudiced. Those people can be wrong. And we dont do nearly enough within our system to hold our judges accountable, right? Theres no theyre appointed for life. Theres no way to remove them, absent impeachment. Like, these are real problems that we have, when you run into clear cases of bias or unethical behavior, as I believe were seeing with Judge Cannon.

And look, Juan, lets remember this. I am suggesting that Cannon is biased and corrupt, based on her opinion, which has no basis in law. The other option is that she has no idea what shes doing. And I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt that she actually knows what shes doing and has decided to help Trump, as opposed to, to me, whats worse, that she truly, kind of honestly doesnt understand how law works. Like, I dont think shes dumb. I think she is biased and prejudiced towards Trump. And the reason why I think that is that she said it in her opinion. She literally wrote that she was treating Trump differently because he was the former president, which is a kind of legal jargony way of saying, look, Juan, if you and I or Amy goes into the National Archives and steals documents, I promise you Judge Aileen Cannon is not slowing down the investigation against us for criminal liability in violations of the Espionage Act.

AMY GOODMAN: So, lets talk about the latest news that NBC is reporting, that among those very classified documents are perhaps nuclear secrets of another nuclear-armed country, just among the classified documents. But The New York Times reports, in her Senate questionnaire this is Judge Cannon described herself as having been a member of the conservative Federalist Society since 2005. And youve done a lot of investigation into this and the power of Leonard Leo, now getting $1.6 billion to start a new organization, and how they have populated the courts, not just her court, but if the Department of Justice appeals this to the 11th Court of Appeals, that court, and then, of course, to the Supreme Court. Trump alone got three Federalist Society judges on the justices on the Supreme Court. And in that answer, Elie, if you can talk about your call for adding more people to the Supreme Court?

ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah. So, lets start with Leo. If youre keeping tabs on what the new $1.6 billion man is doing, one of the first things hes done with the money is file an amicus brief for the upcoming Supreme Court case, advancing this bonkers theory of an independent state legislature that is allowed to change election laws without regard to their own state constitution. Its the biggest upcoming case in the Supreme Court docket this year, because it, essentially, will allow could allow state legislatures, red state legislatures, to simply throw away votes they dont like. Thats what Leonard Leo is doing with his money.

Thats what the Federalist Society is about. Thats their kind of modus operandi, to infect democracy and to take it away from the people and put it behind closed doors. Aileen Cannon, obviously a part of that from her whole career. She wouldnt have been appointed by Trump, who doesnt know a lot about judges he kind of outsourced his judicial picks to the Federalist Society. She wouldnt have been appointed by Trump without Federalist Society approval. So, thats on the one hand.

As you say, Amy, if the Department of Justice appeals this ruling, which they should, because its again, theres no basis in law for it, you go to the 11th Circuit, which is stacked with Trump judges. Then you go back to the Supreme Court, which also is stacked with Republican justices. Weve seen what theyve been willing to do, willing to do to precedent and the rule of law, just last term. So there are no good options there.

And thats something that I think liberals and progressives need to understand more generally. There is nothing that you can do to get around six conservative justices on the Supreme Court and a Republican justice judges stacked up and down through the judicial system. Weve already seen, with the Biden administration, they will block executive orders. They will issue stays and injunctions against moves made by Biden and this Congress. And they will seek to overturn laws passed by this Congress.

So, we saw last term, the Clean Air Act, yeah, that doesnt really matter to the conservatives on the Supreme Court when it comes to regulating the environmental pollutants in our air. The Supreme Court just basically ignored the Clean Air Act. And thats what theyre going to do again if if, by some miracle, Democrats hold onto the House theyll probably keep the Senate, because the Republicans have nominated some terrible candidates and they pass a nationwide abortion rights protection, the Supreme Court will overturn that before breakfast. Like, as long as you let the Republicans control the Supreme Court, there is no progressive agenda. There is no Democratic agenda that gets through these conservatives on the Supreme Court.

The only rational play this is beyond politics, this is beyond reform the only rational play for any Democratic administration, for any Democratic candidate who wants to get anything done for the next 30 years, is to add justices to the Supreme Court. Now, I have a lot of actual reform reasons why we should add justices. In my book, I talk about how, beyond the politics of it, more justices are better. It leads to more moderate decisions, because its harder to get a majority when you have more people. It leads to more diversity, more diversity of thought, and to say nothing of racial, ethnic and gender diversity. There are lots of good reform reasons to add more justices to the Supreme Court.

But as a practical political matter, if Democrats want their agenda to be upheld, they need to counteract the power of conservative justices that have been sent in there specifically to put a stop to progress to not just the progressive agenda in terms of left-right, a stop to progress, to bring us back to as Sam Alito did in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, bring us back to a time when women were not considered full citizens and full people. Like, that is the goal of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. And as long as we let them have power, that is what they will be doing.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Elie, I wanted to ask you we only have about a minute or two, but voting rights. Considering all of the state efforts in the past few years to limit and restrict voting across the country, your concerns about whats going to happen in the upcoming election and, of course, in the presidential election in a couple of years, in terms of the ability of the majority of the American people to elect representatives that represent them?

ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah. So, this goes back to Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court. John Roberts has been an enemy of voting rights, and specifically an enemy of Black people voting, for his entire career. His first real job out of school was to work against the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. He gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2013s Shelby County v. Holder. And he was part of the majority that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 2021s Brnovich v. Arizona. John Roberts is the real bad guy here when it comes to voting.

Now, how does that play out on the ground? Well, one thing that I have learned you know, my mother was born in 1950 in Mississippi, so my people go back a long way on this. One thing Ive learned in my travels is that when you tell people they cant vote, that makes them want to vote more. And so, there is the opportunity, the possibility, that all of the efforts to suppress the vote backfire on people who have been historically challenged in their ability to vote. It could lead to a higher more dedication to go out and have that right, that people are that Republicans are so desperately trying to take away.

But thats where this critical Supreme Court case, Moore v. Harper, that Ive been talking about, comes into play, this independent state legislature theory, this Leonard Leo ploy, that would allow states to throw away votes that have already been duly cast and counted. So, Republicans are both trying to suppress the vote and, if that doesnt work, trying to put themselves in a position where they can overturn the vote and throw away votes they dont like. We are in a crisis of democracy. We are not approaching a constitutional crisis; the crisis is upon us. And the question is: What do we do about it?

AMY GOODMAN: Elie Mystal, were going to have you back on to talk more about what we do about it and your book, The Nation's justice correspondent, author of the best-selling book, Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution.

Next up, we continue to remember the life and legacy of author, activist Barbara Ehrenreich. Back in 30 seconds.

Originally posted here:
Elie Mystal on the Four Investigations into Trump & Why Progressives Should Push to Expand the Court - Democracy Now!

Amid remembrances for all those killed at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania 21 years ago Sunday, some progressives U.S. lawmakers also renewed calls to learn from the so-called "War on Terror" and discriminatory policies that followed the terrorist attacks.

"In the wake of 9/11, some government leaders chose fear and hate over healing."

"21 years ago we lost thousands of lives in the devastating 9/11 attacks," tweeted Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). "Let's remember those who we have lost, but also remember how it sparked intense Islamophobia and hatred in our country. We must continue to do better and learn from our mistakes."

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) said in a series of tweets that "today, we're thinking of all whose lives were changed that day: families grieving the loved ones taken from them, as well as communities targeted with hate and harassment for their race, religion, or national origin."

Noting that the U.S. government responded to the attacks with "two long-term military campaigns, torture, and countless civil rights and liberties violations of Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, Sikh, and South Asian people," the CPC declared that "we must end endless wars, close Guantnamo, and abandon unconstitutional surveillance and discriminatory policy."

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the CPC, shared that "9/11 is when my path into activism and organizing truly began. So much changed that day, and so much has happened in the intervening two decades but our work still continues."

"Today we must remember the communities right here at home that suffered so muchnot only through the terrorist attacks that affected every American's psyche, but also the hate, discrimination, and erosion of civil liberties they had to endure," she stressed.

Jayapal also pointed to the resolution she introduced on September 10, 2021 with Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to acknowledge what Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities nationwide have endured post-9/11 and offer recommendations to support those affected.

Lakshmi Sridaran, executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Togetherone of the dozens of groups that backed the effortsaid last year that "we are hopeful that this resolution will center the accountability of members of Congress to rescind the policies of the War on Terror and truly ensure the safety of all communities of color."

In a nearly 15-minute speech at the Pentagon Sunday, President Joe Biden also acknowledged the discrimination some people in the United States faced after the 2001 attacks.

"A true sense of national unity," he said, "that's the greatest lesson of September 11thnot that we will never again face a setback, but that in the moment of great unity we also had to face down the worst impulses: fear, violence, recrimination directed against Muslim Americans as well as Americans of Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage."

See the original post:
Progressive Lawmakers Mark 9/11 With Calls to 'Do Better and Learn From Our Mistakes' - Common Dreams

Two years ago New York implemented a broad reform to its bail system, covering misdemeanors and felonies alike, intended to ensure nobody would remain stuck behind bars simply because they couldnt afford cash bail. Data shows the reforms arent leading to an increase in crime, but that hasnt stopped Republicans from lying about it.

Even as conservative politicians and their allies on Fox News hammer these sorts of broad reforms, theyll sheepishly admit that, yes, people with low-risk cases should be allowed to return to their homes and jobs and families while waiting for trial.

So youd expect Republicans to be happy with Harris Countys conservative bail reform, which only covers low-level misdemeanors. Theyre not, and it gives progressives the opportunity to push for something better.

These reforms stem from the ODonnell lawsuit, in which a federal judge found Harris Countys cash bail system was unconstitutionally detaining people facing misdemeanor charges on the basis of their wealth rather than on the basis of risk to public safety or flight from court.

In response to this court case, the largest county in Texas created a presumption of quick pretrial release for most people charged with low-level misdemeanors. This bail reform also includes cut-outs to exempt higher-risk misdemeanors like family violence, repeat DWIs, and new offenses while out on bail or probation/parole. Basically, it applies to the low-hanging fruit the easiest cases that everyone admits pose no threat to public safety without having to touch on anything potentially controversial.

So far, research has found that Harris Countys misdemeanor bail reform kept people out of jail, reduced reliance on plea deals, and even reduced recidivism rates. Thats right: Bail reform is fighting crime. It turns out people are less likely to commit new crimes if you let them return to their jobs, families, and communities instead of locking them up with other accused criminals.

Heres the downside: Misdemeanor bail reform is a good first step, but it isnt nearly enough.

While drug possession and one-punch bar fights may earn easy sympathies for quick pretrial release, the fact of the matter is that our jails are filled with tougher cases. More than half of all people held in Harris County jail before their trials are there on charges for violent offenses like aggravated robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and murder. Some of these cases no doubt involve people who should be detained before trial but nowhere near all of them. Individuals charged with violent crimes are still innocent under the law, and the facts show that a vast majority will simply go back to their lives if theyre released before trial.

Any serious bail reform effort has to address the injustice of wealth-based detention in these felony cases, too.

But these cases also make for scary headlines, and all it takes is one case ending in tragedy to overshadow one thousand that go right.

Luckily, progressives can point to the success of Harris Countys misdemeanor bail reform as a good start and push for reforms in the felony system next.

However, it isnt hard to imagine a world where Republicans latch onto the success of ODonnell and try to use it to stifle this forward momentum and divide the reform movement.

Right-wing power players like the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the arch-libertarian Cato Institute supported the initial ODonnell litigation, along with dozens of law enforcement leaders and current and former prosecutors. Even Crime Stoppers of Houston says theyre OK with it. Republican politicians from Abbott to Alexandra Mealer could hold up Harris Countys misdemeanor reforms as a conservative ideal and contrast it with the broader, most progressive Democratic-led bail reforms in places like New York, Illinois or other scary blue states. In fact, a former NYPD officer did just that in a Houston Chronicle oped this past March.

Im glad that Texas Democrats are finally learning facts about our broken cash bail system that Republicans have known for years, wrote Jillian E. Snider, policy director for R Street, a right-wing think tank. Hopefully theyll join their conservative colleagues in passing reform bills in the next legislative session that will make it easier to detain the truly dangerous, harder to infringe on the constitutions preference of pretrial release and ensure that public safety matters more than bail bond industry profits.

Snider is trying to get Democrats to sign onto a Republican vision of criminal justice reform one that doesnt go nearly far enough. It may help around the edges or in the least controversial cases just like ODonnell but a failure to go all the way would do more to entrench mass incarceration than end it.

That strategy is disingenuous, and also politically brilliant.

Picking all of the low-hanging fruit leaves progressives who want true reform defending the toughest cases. Meanwhile, the Right on Crime crowd gets to stand hand-in-hand with single moms arrested for driving without a license. Moderate Democrats are left in a lurch. Energy gets sapped from the criminal justice reform movement. The media has a field day. Pundits would call it a classic moment of political triangulation just like Donald Trump did with the First Step Act.

In that case, progressives spent years trying to pass an aggressive bill to reduce the federal prison population, but Republicans in Congress co-opted the bill and ended up passing a half-measure while claiming all of the credit.

Luckily, Texas Republicans arent that clever. Instead theyre actually trying to roll back Harris Countys misdemeanor bail reform. Now Harris County candidates like Commissioner Jack Cagle are charging into the 2022 midterms stuck defending an unconstitutional cash bail system that wastes taxpayer dollars locking up working class moms and dads who made one mistake in life while millionaire murderers can pay for their freedom before trial. Our cash bail status quo is wasteful, harmful, ineffective, and 100% Republican.

Meanwhile, progressives are free to claim ODonnell as their own and point to it as an example of what Democratic reforms can accomplish. Taxpayer dollars are saved. Mass incarceration is shrunk. Public safety is improved. And anyone who once tried to push Harris Countys misdemeanor reforms as a conservative alternative is stuck in a political no-mans-land.

Thats bad news for Republicans. And good news for progressives.

To learn more about gun violence in Texas, visit the RA News Gun Violence Watch page.

See the original post:
Texas Republicans Cant Take The Win On Conservative Bail Reform. Thats Good News For Progressives. - Reform Austin

Mayor London Breed has come out against a San Francisco ballot measure that would change the timing of mayoral elections, saying it would help the progressives whove put it on the ballot and needs more public input before it goes to voters.

But a Chronicle analysis of San Francisco election data found that while the measure would probably boost overall voter turnout, areas that are more moderate and therefore more likely to back Breed could actually see the biggest increases. Moreover, neighborhoods with higher support for Breed in her most competitive election in 2018 may have larger increases in turnout.

In the upcoming Nov. 8 election, voters will face Measure H, which its backers say is an effort to boost turnout by moving mayoral elections, currently held in odd-numbered years, to coincide with presidential elections in even-numbered ones.

Supporters of the proposition call it a crucial voting rights measure that aligns with the citys progressive policies. Leading the group is Supervisor Dean Preston, who proposed the measure and is considered the citys most progressive supervisor, according to a previous Chronicle analysis of roll call votes.

Breed opposes the initiative, saying a robust public input process is needed before putting it on the ballot. Breed went even further on KCBS Radio. telling the station that the measure was being pushed by Preston and a group of democratic socialists who want to have more control and power of being able to get more of their people elected. Breed is generally considered a moderate among San Francisco politicians.

The city currently has three major elections presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral that operate on different four-year cycles. Mayoral elections, which include contests for other city officials like district attorney, city attorney and sheriff, happen in November of odd-numbered years. The next one is scheduled for 2023 or 2024 if the measure passes in November. Gubernatorial races coincide with federal midterm elections, which happen two years after every presidential election; the next gubernatorial election is coming up in November. Between these major elections are municipal races for other local offices and special elections, like recalls and runoffs.

S.F. voter turnout is typically highest in presidential elections. Since 1995, average turnout in presidential races was 75%, compared with 59% for governor and 44% for mayoral and primary elections. Other special races have even fewer voters, with an average of just 30%.

Results from the most recent elections show the greatest differences between mayoral and presidential turnout. While 42% of San Francisco voters cast ballots in the 2019 mayoral election, 86% did in the 2020 presidential race.

The gap, however, is probably narrower, as some voters leave questions regarding local races blank on presidential ballots. In 2020, an average of 37,000 voters left the 13 city propositions unmarked, bringing the actual voting rate on local races down to 79%.

Still, the difference in turnout from 2019 to 2020 is almost 40 percentage points, and moving mayoral elections to the presidential cycle could nearly double voter turnout.

After Los Angeles moved local races from odd years to even years, it found a significant boost in turnout across the city. According to research from California Common Cause, the city saw four times more ballots cast in city races in 2020 compared with the previous local race in 2015.

To understand the political implications of this change, The Chronicle compared neighborhood-level turnout with the progressivity of each area. To do this, we used the Progressive Voter Index (PVI), which uses an areas voting history on different ballot measures to score it from most to least progressive by San Francisco standards. Each area gets a score ranging from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating more progressive voting records.

We found that neighborhoods with low PVI scores (i.e. less progressive voting behavior) are more likely than high-PVI areas to have higher turnout in presidential than mayoral elections.

Take, for instance, the Marina and Pacific Heights area, which has a relatively low PVI of 42. In the last two mayoral elections, the average turnout there was 40%, compared to 89% in the previous two presidential elections. Thats a 49-percentage-point difference, the largest gap among 26 San Francisco neighborhoods, as defined by the San Francisco Department of Elections.

In contrast, the north Bernal Heights area the highest-PVI-scoring neighborhood, at 91 saw a 36-percentage-point difference in turnout between the most recent presidential and mayoral elections.

Moreover, the population in low-PVI neighborhoods is much larger than in high-PVI areas. In other words, switching the timing of mayoral races in which the dynamics between progressives and moderates are more pronounced could shift the progressivity of the electorate more to the right than in past municipal elections.

Its important to note that we dont know whether the progressivity of this group of voters those who vote in presidential but not mayoral elections reflects the PVI of their neighborhood. Its possible that they hold significantly different viewpoints from those in the area who regularly voted in past elections.

According to Supervisor Preston, the measure is not meant to favor one side over the other. Nonpartisan groups, like California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, led the initiative to gather support for the measure.

Its not about picking winners, its about making sure the most San Franciscans have a meaningful voice in choosing the citys most powerful elected leaders. Its about strengthening our local Democracy, Preston wrote in an email to The Chronicle.

The measure, in fact, received support from supervisors who typically disagree politically. Among the seven supervisors who voted to put the measure on the ballot were Supervisor Catherine Stefani, Ahsha Safa and Myrna Melgar, who are among the least progressive board members and typically do not vote in agreement with Preston on contentious issues.

According to political strategist Ruth Bernstein from EMC Research Inc., we can expect other changes in voter demographics. Compared to low-turnout elections, voters in high-turnout races tend to be younger, more diverse and generally look more like the overall city demographic.

When you have 80 to 85% turnout, its going to look like the full demographic of the voting population or community, Bernstein said.

What might the scheduling change mean specifically for Breed and her reelection chances in 2024? We compared the turnout difference from recent elections with results from Breeds 2018 win over Mark Leno and Jane Kim. The citywide results from ranked-choice voting show over a third of voters chose Breed as their first choice, compared to 24% each for Leno and Kim.

The neighborhood-level data shows that areas with more first-choice votes for Breed in 2018 are associated with greater increases in turnout between presidential and mayoral elections.

When the ballot measure was introduced to the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Breed voiced objections, saying not enough public opinion had been gathered to understand the effects of the change. She pointed to the public input process that Los Angeles and San Jose two cities that made similar election changes went through to gather feedback about how to improve turnout before putting something on the ballot.

A poll from David Binder Research found that 43% of likely voters would vote in favor of the measure, while 15% were against it and 41% were undecided. The poll surveyed 600 likely Nov. 2022 voters in San Francisco from May 31 to June 5, 2022.

The supervisors who opposed putting the measure on the ballot voiced concerns around reducing the number of elections and the specific timing of Prestons proposal. When asked about other potentially negative effects, Bernstein said it may be harder for local candidates to get their messaging across to voters because of the many federal and statewide ballot items, which typically get more attention. This is evident when looking at the campaign finance totals going to statewide propositions compared to city measures in the upcoming November election.

When you vote in presidential elections, there are a lot of things on the ballot, like the presidential race, statewide measures and other offices, Bernstein said. It can be harder for local candidates to break through in communications because theres a lot more going on.

Nami Sumida (she/her) is a San Francisco Chronicle data visualization developer. Email: nami.sumida@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @namisumida

See the original post:
San Francisco may shift its mayoral elections to line up with presidential races. Is that good for progressives or moderates? - San Francisco...