Cash bail policies are under fresh scrutiny
by Amanda Hernández, Alabama Reflector This story was originally published by Stateline. States can’t figure out what to do about cash bail. The system — in which an arrested suspect pays cash to avoid sitting in jail until their court date and gets the money back when they appear — is deeply entrenched in the nation’s history as a way to ensure defendants return to face justice. But cash bail is undergoing a reckoning as policymakers debate its disproportionate effects on underserved communities and people with low incomes who sometimes can’t afford bail — as well as just how much the system truly keeps the public safe. This year some states such as Illinois and jurisdictions such as Los Angeles County in California and Cuyahoga County in Ohio scaled back their bail systems, even eliminating cash bail entirely for low-level offenses in some cases. Policymakers in other places, meanwhile, are moving in the opposite direction. Republican lawmakers in at least 14 states — including Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin — introduced about 20 bills this year aimed at increasing the number of non-bailable offenses and either encouraging or requiring judges to consider defendants’ criminal records when setting bail, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. And in New York state, where changes to curtail the use of bail took effect in 2020, lawmakers have made several rounds of rollbacks amid concerns about rising crime rates. Some bail policy advocates argue that these changes may contribute to racial and socioeconomic discrimination by relying on one’s ability to post bail and undermine the idea that those accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty. “There’s no single answer to effective bail reform,” Meghan Guevara, executive partner with the Pretrial Justice Institute, a criminal justice advocacy group, told Stateline. Measures to increase the use of cash bail or to include certain factors in assessing bail eligibility saw varying levels of success. In Wisconsin, voters approved a state constitutional amendment in April allowing judges to consider factors such as a defendant’s past convictions and the need to protect the public from bodily harm in “violent crime” cases. Missouri Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation in July that requires judges who are setting bail to first consider factors such as a suspect’s flight risk, potential danger to others, past convictions for violent crimes, and previous failures to appear in court. In Indiana, lawmakers in April passed their first swipe at Senate Joint Resolution 1, which would amend language in the state’s constitution and enable judges to deny bail to those they consider a “substantial risk.” The bill must pass again in 2025 before appearing on the ballot in 2026. In Georgia, lawmakers considered legislation that sought to impose cash or property bail for dozens of additional crimes, including misdemeanors. It failed due to disagreements between the House and Senate, but Republican state Rep. Houston Gaines, who sponsored the measure in the House, expects the bill to pass in the next legislative session. Gaines, in an emailed statement, said: “Eliminating cash bail has been a disaster in places it’s been tried — even New York has reversed course on some of its radical policies. We can’t afford to create a revolving door of criminals who don’t show up for court and victimize other individuals.” Political backlash and rollbacks Between 2017 and 2019, a bipartisan movement for changes to bail systems gained momentum at both the local and state levels. Some states, such as New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kentucky, sharply curtailed their cash bail systems by almost entirely eliminating cash bail, expanding release programs, and moving toward risk-based assessments to determine pretrial release. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic strained crowded jails and detention centers, and agencies eased bail systems to reduce exposure. Between 2019 and 2020, homicide rates increased 30% — one of the largest year-over-year increases on record, according to data released by the FBI and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Homicide gun deaths also surged 35% in 2020, the largest year-over-year increase recorded in more than 25 years. Despite these increases, the overall violent crime rate in the country did not increase during the pandemic, according to federal crime surveys. In California and New York, policymakers rolled back their pre-pandemic changes to cash bail. “Fears about public safety are in many ways greatly overblown and misplaced,” said Sharlyn Grace, a senior policy adviser at the law office of the Cook County Public Defender in Illinois. “It is exceedingly rare for someone who’s released pretrial to be arrested and accused of a new offense that involves violence against another person.” A report released by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice in 2021 found that about 95% of individuals arrested and released between January and September 2020 were not rearrested while awaiting trial, and there was a very little difference in rearrest rates before and after bail reform in the state. It is exceedingly rare for someone who’s released pretrial to be arrested and accused of a new offense that involves violence against another person. – Sharlyn Grace, senior policy adviser at the law office of the Cook County Public Defender in Illinois New York had passed a sweeping overhaul in 2019, largely ending the use of money bail for misdemeanors and lower-level felonies, with a focus on imposing the “least restrictive” release conditions. The state’s bail law has undergone multiple rounds of revisions since then, primarily driven by calls from Republicans to amend or completely reverse the law. In early 2020, New York expanded bail options, particularly in cases involving harm to a person or property. In 2022, the state further broadened the definition of “harm” and clarified factors judges must consider, such as criminal history, when setting release conditions. This year, negotiations over additional changes led to the removal of the requirement for the “least restrictive” release, a proposal announced by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul last spring. Some state Democrats and criminal justice advocacy groups have strongly
Long lines are back at US food banks as inflation hits high
Long lines are back at food banks around the U.S. as working Americans overwhelmed by inflation turn to handouts to help feed their families. With gas prices soaring along with grocery costs, many people are seeking charitable food for the first time, and more are arriving on foot. Inflation in the U.S. is at a 40-year high, and gas prices have been surging since April 2020, with the average cost nationwide briefly hitting $5 a gallon in June. Rapidly rising rents and an end to federal COVID-19 relief have also taken a financial toll. The food banks, which had started to see some relief as people returned to work after pandemic shutdowns, are struggling to meet the latest need even as federal programs provide less food to distribute, grocery store donations wane, and cash gifts don’t go nearly as far. Tomasina John was among hundreds of families lined up in several lanes of cars that went around the block one recent day outside St. Mary’s Food Bank in Phoenix. John said her family had never visited a food bank before because her husband had easily supported her and their four children with his construction work. “But it’s really impossible to get by now without some help,” said John, who traveled with a neighbor to share gas costs as they idled under a scorching desert sun. “The prices are way too high.” Jesus Pascual was also in the queue. “It’s a real struggle,” said Pascual, a janitor who estimated he spends several hundred dollars a month on groceries for him, his wife, and their five children aged 11 to 19. The same scene is repeated across the nation, where food bank workers predict a rough summer keeping ahead of demand. The surge in food prices comes after state governments ended COVID-19 disaster declarations that temporarily allowed increased benefits under SNAP, the federal food stamp program covering some 40 million Americans. “It does not look like it’s going to get better overnight,” said Katie Fitzgerald, president and chief operating officer for the national food bank network Feeding America. “Demand is really making the supply challenges complex.” Charitable food distribution has remained far above amounts given away before the coronavirus pandemic, even though demand tapered off somewhat late last year. Feeding America officials say second-quarter data won’t be ready until August, but they are hearing anecdotally from food banks nationwide that demand is soaring. The Phoenix food bank’s main distribution center doled out food packages to 4,271 families during the third week in June, a 78% increase over the 2,396 families served during the same week last year, said St. Mary’s spokesman Jerry Brown. More than 900 families line up at the distribution center every weekday for an emergency government food box stuffed with goods such as canned beans, peanut butter, and rice, said Brown. St. Mary’s adds products purchased with cash donations, as well as food provided by local supermarkets like bread, carrots, and pork chops for a combined package worth about $75. Distribution by the Alameda County Community Food Bank in Northern California has ticked up since hitting a pandemic low at the beginning of this year, increasing from 890 households served on the third Friday in January to 1,410 households on the third Friday in June, said marketing director Michael Altfest. At the Houston Food Bank, the largest food bank in the U.S., where food distribution levels earlier in the pandemic briefly peaked at a staggering 1 million pounds a day, an average of 610,000 pounds is now being given out daily. That’s up from about 500,000 pounds a day before the pandemic, said spokeswoman Paula Murphy said. Murphy said cash donations have not eased, but inflation ensures they don’t go as far. Food bank executives said the sudden surge in demand caught them off guard. “Last year, we had expected a decrease in demand for 2022 because the economy had been doing so well,” said Michael Flood, CEO of the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. “This issue with inflation came on pretty suddenly.” “A lot of these are people who are working and did OK during the pandemic and maybe even saw their wages go up,” said Flood. “But they have also seen food prices go up beyond their budgets.” A volunteer fills up a vehicle with food boxes at the St. Mary’s Food Bank in Phoenix. The Los Angeles bank gave away about 30 million pounds of food during the first three months of this year, slightly less than the previous quarter but still far more than the 22 million pounds given away during the first quarter of 2020. Feeding America’s Fitzgerald is calling on USDA and Congress to find a way to restore hundreds of millions of dollars worth of commodities recently lost with the end of several temporary programs to provide food to people in need. USDA commodities, which generally can represent as much as 30% of the food the banks disperse, accounted for more than 40% of all food distributed in fiscal year 2021 by the Feeding America network. “There is a critical need for the public sector to purchase more food now,” said Fitzgerald. During the Trump administration, USDA bought several billions of dollars in pork, apples, dairy, potatoes, and other products in a program that gave most of it to food banks. The “Food Purchase & Distribution Program” designed to help American farmers harmed by tariffs and other practices of U.S. trade partners has since ended. There was $1.2 billion authorized for the 2019 fiscal year and another $1.4 billion authorized for fiscal 2020. Another temporary USDA “Farmers to Families” program that provided emergency relief provided more than 155 million food boxes for families in need across the U.S. during the height of the pandemic before ending on May 31, 2021. A USDA spokesperson noted the agency is using $400 million from the Build Back Better initiative to establish agreements with states, territories, and tribal governments to buy food from local, regional, and underserved producers that can be given to food banks, schools,
William Haupt III: Nancy Pelosi’s home district is a progressive nightmare
“Nancy Pelosi’s district in California has rapidly become one of the worst anywhere in the U.S. when it comes to the homeless and crime. It has gotten so bad, so fast.” – Donald Trump In the 1960s, America’s boomers rebelled against authority and the Vietnam War. They pursued sexual liberation, experimental drugs, communal living, and civil rights. This counterculture lived by the motto “sex, drugs, rock and roll.” In 1967, thousands of hippies and flower children made their way to Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco for what was billed as the “Summer of Love” – and many never left. Haight-Ashbury soon eroded into an enclave for dropouts, addicts, and the homeless. In the late 1970s, the area was targeted for gentrification, and investors began cleaning it up. By 1990, Haight-Ashbury was among San Francisco’s most affluent and expensive neighborhoods. But today, it is home to tent cities with trash-ridden streets ravaged with violent crime, and it is a Mecca for drug users and sellers. Conditions are worse than slums in almost every other U.S. city. How can the most expensive place to live in America also be one of the worst places to live in the U.S.A.? While San Francisco has been the most progressive city in America for years, this liberal utopia has not always been a harbor for addicts, the homeless, criminals, and social derelicts. “It’s an odd thing, but anyone who disappears is said to be seen in San Francisco.” – Oscar Wilde In the 1960s, liberal strategist Phillip Burton saw the potential of growing the Democratic Party by pandering to the hippies, minorities, and gays. With their support, he was elected to the U.S. House in 1964, where he served until his death in 1983. His wife Sala Burton held this seat until 1987. In a special election, Nancy Pelosi seized this coveted progressive prize in 1987 and won’t give it up. With the election of far-left liberal Gov. Jerry Brown in 2010, San Francisco became a progressive paradise. In 2014, Brown financed Prop 57, which helped free thousands of California inmates from prison. Voters also approved Prop 47, which reduced most nonviolent crimes, including theft under $950 to misdemeanors. Both were pushed by Lt Governor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco district attorney George Gascón, the San Francisco Democratic Party, and the Harvey Milk LGBT Club. In 2016, voters approved Prop 64, giving municipalities the power to ban or sell weed. But many cities and counties did not react. A 2011 federal court had ruled that local governments trying to regulate the sale of weed would violate federal law. But it was welcomed by all San Franciscans. By 2019, the deregulation of crime, release of thousands of inmates, legalization of cannabis, and declaring California a sanctuary state enabled new Gov Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco, to clone the entire state of California into a progressive twin sister of San Francisco. San Francisco has declared the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization,” banned fast-food joints that include toys in children’s meals, outlawed plastic bags and straws, raised the minimum wage from $9.79 to $15.59 an hour, and refuses to prosecute anyone for nonviolent crimes. While these policies appeal to the far left, they also encourage the homeless and derelicts to venture up north. How bad are things in San Francisco? According to a KGO news report, in 2011, the Bay City spent $157 million on the homeless. By 2016, it was up to $242 million. In the 2021 budget proposal, it is now over $364 million. The consensus estimates the homeless population is at least 17,500. “As mayor of San Francisco, I witnessed its greatest cultural and social transition.” – Gavin Newsom Progressives insist the stark contrast in wealth and poverty is the result of the failure of capitalism to provide for the needy. But while politicians preach “compassion,” their policies have resulted in record-high levels of homelessness, drug addiction, and a rapid increase in violent felonious crime. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the city’s policies have created an “influx of about 450 homeless people a year who migrate to places like the Tenderloin District. This is a sanctuary for people hiding out from the law who do not want the government to know where they are living. In reaction to the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests and riots, along with outrage by activists against police, San Francisco elected progressive Chesa Boudin as district attorney of San Francisco in 2020. He was endorsed by Angela Davis, Bernie Sanders, and Ibram X. Kendi. Boudin, the adopted son of radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, quickly reduced the use of cash bail and restrained the power of the police. He quit prosecuting misdemeanors. He then did the unthinkable and started charging police officers with felonies who used force during arrests. “I will move away from the draconian, tough-on-crime, three-strike super-rhetoric hype.” – Chesa Boudin According to Stop Crime, the Bay City is experiencing a dramatic increase in serious crime under Boudin. Burglaries are up 42%, and homicides have increased 30% compared to the previous year. Motor vehicle thefts have risen by 71%, and arsons have jumped over 35% since he became DA. Recently, a local ABC News reporter witnessed a shoplifter sweeping entire shelves of products into garbage bags inside a Walgreens. He mounted a bike and rode past a security guard out the door. Other retail stores are reporting the same problems in every neighborhood in San Francisco. “This rise in crime is a result of Chesa Boudin’s soft-crime policies.” – Frank Noto, Victim’s Rights It’s been said that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” All good intentions of Prop 47 and Prop 57 have been undone by Chesa Boudin’s leftist extremism, pandering to criminals, and punishing the police for doing their job. What’s happening in San Francisco is proof of how quickly perjured progressive idealism can turn an economically prosperous city into a living hell on earth. It is hard
Last week California, next up Alabama? Fight to end cash bail comes to Birmingham
A Birmingham queer liberation organization will be hosting an “Ending Money Bail Workshop” later in September, calling attention to growing national movement to end cash bail. Earlier this week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation to end cash bail in the state. “Several U.S. cities and states have in recent years reduced their reliance on bail, arguing the system unfairly confines poor people, creating overcrowded jails and extra costs for taxpayers,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Those who have been accused of crimes will instead be assessed, released on their own recognizance, given conditions for their release (GPS trackers, placed on house arrest) or held in jail. The Birmingham chapter of Southerners On New Ground (SONG) is hoping to spark the conversation here in the Yellowhammer State by hosting the “Critical Resistance: Ending Money Bail Workshop,” at the Beloved Community Church September 29th at 2:00 p.m. “Join SONG Birmingham for the first political education workshop on the End Money Bail campaign. We will learn together about how this campaign fits into a larger narrative around prison abolition,” the description of the event on Facebook reads. “We will deepen our understanding of the local bail system, and we will envision alternatives together!” “Across the South, we are building team justice to put an end to the policy and practice of Money Bail. We come from directly impacted communities – Black, Latinx, people of color, immigrant, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and trans (LGBTQ), and working class,” the description continues. “We know that people belong at home, in our neighborhoods, families, communities and not in cages.” SONG Birmingham is a local chapter of Southerners On New Ground (SONG), a southeast regional “Queer Liberation organization” with allies in the immigrant, undocumented, disabled, LGBTQ and working class communities. According to the group’s website, “SONG builds a beloved community of LGBTQ people in the South who are ready and willing to do our part to challenge oppression in order to bring about liberation for ALL people.” “We develop leadership, build our membership base, and identify and carry out community organizing projects and campaigns,” the site continues. “All of our work strives to bring together marginalized communities to work towards justice and liberation for all people.”
Trump administration proposes car-mileage rollback; states sue in protest
Citing safety, the Trump administration on Thursday proposed rolling back car-mileage standards, backing away from years of government efforts to cut Americans’ trips to the gas station and reduce unhealthy, climate-changing tailpipe emissions. If the proposed rule becomes final, it could roil the auto industry as it prepares for new model years and weaken one of the federal government’s chief weapons against climate change — regulating emissions from cars and other vehicles. The result, opponents say, will be dirtier air and more pollution-related illness and death. The proposal itself estimates it could cost tens of thousands of jobs — auto workers who deal with making vehicles more fuel efficient. The administration also said it wants to revoke an authority granted to California under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own, tougher mileage standards. California and 16 other states already have filed suit to block any change in the fuel efficiency rules. “The EPA has handed decision making over to the fossil fuel lobbyists…the flat-Earthers, the climate change deniers,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. The proposal would freeze U.S. mileage standards at levels mandated by the Obama administration for 2020, when the new vehicle fleet will be required to hit an average of 30 miles per gallon in real-world driving. The proposed change, halting further improvement requirements, stakes its case on consumer choice and on highway safety claims challenged by many transportation experts. The administration says waiving requirements for greater fuel efficiency would make cars and light trucks somewhat more affordable. And that, it said, would get vehicles with the latest technology into the hands of consumers more quickly. It’s got “everything to do with just trying to turn over the fleet … and get more clean and safe cars on the road,” said Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The administration will now seek public comment on its proposal and a range of other options, including leaving the tighter, Obama fuel standards in place. Some Republican lawmakers supported the mileage freeze, but environmental groups and many states assailed it. “This has to be absolutely one of the most harmful and dumbest actions that the EPA has taken,” said Healey of Massachusetts, one of the attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia objecting to the change. “It’s going to cost drivers here and across the country hundreds of millions of dollars more at the pump.” The EPA under President Barack Obama had proposed mileage standards that gradually would become tougher, rising to 36 miles per gallon in 2025, 10 mpg higher than the current requirement. California and the automakers agreed to the rules in 2012, setting a single national fuel economy standard. Soon after taking office, President Donald Trump called for a rollback, urging “common sense changes” if the mileage requirements threatened auto industry jobs. However, his administration’s report on Thursday projects that relaxing mileage standards would cost 60,000 auto jobs by 2030. Those losses would hit the estimated 200,000 U.S. jobs that deal with making vehicles more fuel efficient, said Simon Mui of the Natural Resources Defense Council. A Transportation Department spokesperson called the estimate of job losses “rough approximations.” Two former EPA mileage officials said the administration’s proposal departed from years of findings on fuel efficiency, car safety, exhaust emissions and costs. “They don’t offer any meaningful example of what has changed so dramatically” to warrant the reversal, said Jeff Alson, who until this spring was a senior engineer in the EPA’s transportation and air quality office. “In my opinion the only way they got there was, they knew what kind of results they were told to get and they cooked the books to get that result.” Chet France, an EPA senior executive until his retirement in 2012, called the administration’s contention that the mileage freeze would cause only a tiny increase in climate-changing exhaust emissions “bogus.” California Gov. Jerry Brown said his state “will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.” The Obama administration had planned to keep toughening fuel requirements through 2026, saying those and other regulations on vehicles would save 40,000 lives annually through cleaner air. That argument remained on the EPA’s website Thursday. According to Trump administration estimates, the Obama fuel efficiency standards would raise the price of vehicles by an average of $2,340. That would price many buyers out of the new-vehicle market, forcing them to drive older, less-safe vehicles that pollute more, the administration says. Heidi King, deputy administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said the freeze would reduce highway deaths by 1,000 per year “by reducing these barriers that prevent consumers from getting into the newer, safer, cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.” But private transportation experts say there are so many factors involved that the 1,000-lives figure is questionable. The affordability argument also ignores thousands of dollars of saving in fuel costs for each driver over the life of a car, opponents of the rollbacks said. Longstanding federal legislation has allowed California to set its own mileage standards given the choking smog that still sometimes blankets Los Angeles and other central and Southern California valley cities. More than a dozen states follow California’s standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country’s new-vehicle market. A drawn-out legal battle over the standards could hurt the auto industry as it tries to plan for coming model years. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a main industry group, sought to stave off any dispute between California and the federal government that could split the U.S. car market: “We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of American drivers.” In 2012, when the standards were first adopted, cars were about 50 percent of new-vehicle sales. Now they’re only about one-third, with less-efficient trucks and SUVS making up the rest. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Donald Trump draws rebuke for ‘animal’ remark at immigration talk
While railing against California for its so-called sanctuary immigration policies, President Donald Trump referred to some people who cross the border illegally as “animals” — drawing a sharp rebuke from Democratic leaders for the harsh rhetoric. Trump’s remark at a meeting with local leaders was in response to a comment about MS-13 gang members. “We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them,” Trump said during the immigration roundtable after Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims complained about state restrictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.” Trump has repeatedly referred to members of the violent street gang as “animals” in speeches, rallies and at White House events. He has also used the term to describe terrorists and school shooters. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., responded on Twitter to the president, saying, “When all of our great-great-grandparents came to America they weren’t ‘animals,’ and these people aren’t either.” And House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi said, “Every day that you think you’ve seen it all, along comes another manifestation of why their policies are so inhumane.” Trump was joined at the Wednesday White House meeting by mayors, sheriffs and other local leaders from California who oppose the state’s immigration policies and who applauded his administration’s hard-line efforts. “This is your Republican resistance right here against what they’re doing in California,” said Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, coopting a term used by Democrats opposed to Trump’s presidency. She, like others, said the president and his policies were far more popular in the state than people realize. They were criticizing legislation Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law last year that bars police from asking people about their immigration status or helping federal agents with immigration enforcement. Jail officials can transfer inmates to federal immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one of about 800 crimes, mostly felonies, but not for minor offenses. Brown insists the legislation, which took effect Jan. 1, doesn’t prevent federal immigration officials from doing their jobs. But the Trump administration has sued to reverse it, calling the policies unconstitutional and dangerous. Some counties, including San Diego and Orange, have voted to support the lawsuit or have passed their own anti-sanctuary resolutions. Republicans see backlash to the law as a potentially galvanizing issue during the midterm elections, especially with Trump’s anti-immigrant base. And Trump has held numerous events in recent months during which he’s drawn attention to California’s policies. During the session, Trump thanked the officials, saying they had “bravely resisted California’s deadly and unconstitutional sanctuary state laws.” He claimed those laws are forcing “the release of illegal immigrant criminals, drug dealers, gang members and violent predators into your communities” and providing “safe harbor to some of the most vicious and violent offenders on earth.” Brown responded on Twitter, writing that Trump “is lying on immigration, lying about crime and lying about the laws of CA.” The Democratic governor added: “Flying in a dozen Republican politicians to flatter him and praise his reckless policies changes nothing. We, the citizens of the fifth largest economy in the world, are not impressed.” The discussion comes as the Trump administration is under fire for a new policy that is expected to increase the number of children separated from their parents when families cross the border illegally. Trump, in his remarks, wrongly blamed Democrats for forcing his administration’s hand. “I know what you’re going through right now with families is very tough,” he told Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, “but those are the bad laws that the Democrats gave us. We have to break up families … because of the Democrats. It’s terrible.” But no law “the Democrats gave us” mandates the separation of children from their parents at the border. The administration is using protocols described in a 2008 law designed to combat child trafficking that gave special protections to Central American children at the border. While the bill was authored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, it unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was signed by Republican President George W. Bush as one of his last acts in office. Nielsen on Tuesday defended the practice, telling a Senate committee that removing children from parents facing criminal charges happens “in the United States every day.” The event also came as top House Republicans worked to head off an attempt by party moderates to force roll calls on four immigration bills. Republican leaders privately warned GOP lawmakers Wednesday that such a drive could damage the party’s prospects in the fall’s congressional elections by dispiriting conservative voters, according to people at the closed-door meeting. The House leaders fear the winning legislation would be a compromise bill backed solidly by Democrats but opposed by most Republicans, an outcome that could anger conservatives, according to Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., a leader of the effort to force the immigration votes. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., issued the warning, said a second person who was in the room and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the private conversation. Asked about his remarks, McCarthy said his objection to the procedure was that it would in effect “turn the floor over” to Democrats. House Speaker Paul Ryan said the petition would be “a big mistake” that would “disunify our majority.” He said the leaders were “working with the administration.” The moderates said later Wednesday that House leaders were trying to end the immigration standoff and that they could soon see a specific proposal on how to do that. “We’re willing to see what this looks like,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., a leader of the lawmakers trying to force the House to address the issue. Conservatives had their own session with party leaders and also suggested there had been movement, but offered no specifics. Many of the legislators demanding action face potentially competitive re-election races in congressional districts with large numbers of Hispanic, suburban
Jeff Sessions: California immigration policy defies common sense
California Gov. Jerry Brown denounced U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for coming to the state to speak about a lawsuit targeting policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, saying Wednesday it was unprecedented for him to “act more like Fox News than a law enforcement officer.” Shortly after Sessions’ speech to law enforcement officials, the Democratic governor accused the attorney general of lying and trying to appease President Donald Trump. “What Jeff Sessions said is simply not true and I call upon him to apologize to the people of California for bringing the mendacity of Washington to California,” Brown told reporters. Sessions said several California state laws prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from making deportation arrests and singled out elected officials for their actions. He had particularly strong words for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who issued an unusual public warning last month about an immigration operation. “How dare you?” he said of Schaaf at a California Peace Officers Association meeting in Sacramento. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda?” The Justice Department, in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Sacramento, is challenging three California laws that bar police from asking people about their citizenship status or participating in federal immigration enforcement activities. “It wasn’t something I chose to do, but I can’t sit by idly while the lawful authority of federal officers are being blocked by legislative acts and politicians,” Sessions said, straying from his prepared remarks. More than a dozen attendees in a room of about 200 people gave the attorney general a standing ovation. The lawsuit is the latest salvo in an escalating feud between the Trump administration and California, which has resisted the president on issues from taxes to marijuana policy and defiantly refuses to help federal agents detain and deport immigrants. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has said it will increase its presence in California, and Sessions wants to cut off funding to jurisdictions that won’t cooperate. “I say: Bring it on,” said California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat who wrote the so-called sanctuary state bill. Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon was among those suggesting that Sessions shouldn’t come at all. The lawsuit was filed as the Justice Department also reviews Schaaf’s decision to warn of an immigration sweep in advance, which ICE said allowed hundreds of immigrants to elude detention. Schaaf said Tuesday that the city would “continue to inform all residents about their constitutional rights.” The California laws were passed in response to Trump’s promises to sharply ramp up the deportation of people living in the U.S. illegally. One prohibits employers from letting immigration agents enter worksites or view employee files without a subpoena or warrant, an effort to prevent workplace raids. Another stops local governments from contracting with for-profit companies and ICE to hold immigrants. Justice Department officials said that violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which renders invalid state laws that conflict with federal ones. The Supreme Court reinforced the federal government’s primacy in enforcing immigration law when it blocked much of Arizona’s tough 2010 immigration law on similar grounds. The high court found several key provisions undermined federal immigration law, though it upheld a provision requiring officers, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally. In this case, California “has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of Congress to protect our homeland,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement. Sessions, who has blamed sanctuary city policies for crime and gang violence, spoke Wednesday to groups representing police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys, narcotics investigators and the California Highway Patrol. Only the California State Sheriffs’ Association actively opposed the so-called sanctuary law. Dozens of demonstrators chanted “stand up, fight back” and “no justice, no peace” outside the hotel where the meeting was held and some blocked traffic on a major thoroughfare. A heavy police presence was on hand. Demonstrator Henry Gordon of Sacramento said he hopes Sessions gets the message that Californians will resist efforts to separate families and deport immigrants. Becerra, who is up for election in November, said sanctuary policies increase public safety by promoting trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, while allowing police resources to be used to fight other crimes. “We’re in the business of public safety, not deportation,” he said. Republished with permission form the Associated Press.
Postelection dominoes create 5 open House seats
The postelection dominoes of President Donald Trump‘s administration picks and a California Democratic appointment have created five openings in the House, and that means five special elections in the coming months. It will take some Democratic upsets for this trial heat for 2018 to dent GOP control of the House, where Republicans have a 237-193 edge. Republicans are defending four GOP-leaning seats. Democrats are protecting territory in a liberal California district. Republicans say that puts pressure on Democrats to prove they can capitalize on widespread opposition to Trump. Democrats counter that it’s merely a free opportunity to pick up a seat, maybe two, ahead of next year’s midterm elections. A look at the five congressional contests: GEORGIA’S 6th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT This wealthy district spanning many of Atlanta’s northern suburbs has elected former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sen. Johnny Isakson and current Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, all Republicans. But Democrats believe they have a shot, based on Trump’s underperformance and the early fundraising success of a 30-year-old former congressional staffer, Jon Ossoff. Price won 68 percent of the vote in November, while Trump only edged Democrat Hillary Clinton, 48-47 percent. Ossoff is trying to thread the needle, condemning Trump and highlighting the oversight role of Congress, yet styling himself as a business-friendly centrist. “I believe voters are tired of the partisanship and ready for something fresh,” he says, convinced he can win GOP-leaning moderates. Television airwaves in this expensive market already are filled with Ossoff ads criticizing Trump and also a Republican super PAC ad criticizing the upstart Democrat, a clear sign Republicans aren’t taking any chances. Ossoff’s path depends on advancing to a June 20 runoff from an April 18 “jungle primary” that will have more than a dozen candidates from both parties on the same ballot. In the likely event that no one captures a majority in April, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on. Republicans say Ossoff, even if he advances, won’t stand up against one of several Republican candidates who are well-regarded in the district. ___ MONTANA’S AT-LARGE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Republican multimillionaire Greg Gionforte will try again to win over Montana voters after losing the 2016 governor’s race. This time, he’s talking up Trump. “This election will be a referendum on Donald Trump and this administration,” Gianforte said after last week’s GOP nominating convention. Gianforte won 46 percent of the vote in November against Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, double digits behind Trump’s 57 percent. Gionforte will face musician and political newcomer Rob Quist, also chosen by a state party convention. Quist, a Democrat, already is the target of attack ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the same Republican super PAC that has been going after Ossoff in Georgia. The winner of a May 25 special election will succeed Ryan Zinke, who now leads Trump’s Interior Department. Zinke won re-election with 56 percent of the vote before being tapped for the Cabinet post. Montanans lean conservative, but they are willing to elect Democrats. Bullock, now in his second term, succeeded two-term Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, and Jon Tester is in his second Senate term. Still, Montana’s single House seat has been in GOP hands since 1997. Gionforte can self-finance his campaign, having made a fortune when Oracle paid $1.8 billion to acquire the technology firm he started. Quist has backing from Schweitzer, who remains popular in the state. ____ KANSAS’ 4th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT This reliably Republican district anchored by Wichita has an April 11 special election to pick a successor to Mike Pompeo, now Trump’s CIA director. In a party nominating convention, Republicans tapped state Treasurer Ron Estes, who twice won huge margins statewide and held local office in Wichita for years before that. Democrats, also in a convention, chose Wichita attorney Jim Thompson. Democrats took Thompson’s long odds over the former state treasurer whom Estes defeated in 2010. Republicans have held the seat since their 1994 sweep. ___ SOUTH CAROLINA’s 5th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT The seat opened up when Trump tapped tea party lawmaker Mick Mulvaney to head the Office of Management and Budget. Candidates for May 2 party primaries can officially qualify only after March 13, but several Republicans are in. Among them: state legislative leader Tommy Pope and former state Republican Party Chairman Chad Connelly, who spent the last several years coordinating the national GOP’s outreach to evangelicals. So far, two Democrats are in the race: Archie Parnell, a Goldman Sachs senior adviser, and Alexis Frank, an Army veteran who is now a student. The rapidly growing district includes the suburbs on the southern edge of Charlotte, North Carolina, and the college town Rock Hill, a profile that had South Carolina Democrats quietly hopeful they could threaten Mulvaney in November. But he won easy re-election. ___ CALIFORNIA’s 34th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT This Los Angeles County district is the most lopsided of the special-election contests. Clinton swamped Trump here. The opening came when Gov. Jerry Brown elevated Rep. Xavier Beccera to state attorney general, replacing Kamala Harris, who ascended to the U.S. Senate. The district’s liberal leanings likely mean two Democrats — out of 19 who qualified — will advance from an April 4 jungle primary to a June 6 general election. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
In op-ed, Jeb Bush links his tax reform package to California’s iconic Prop 13
With the second Republican Party presidential debate taking place this week at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, we’re hearing more references than ever references by the GOP candidates to the the nation’s 40th president, who remains as powerful an iconic figure as anyone in Republican politics. That certainly includes Jeb Bush, whose op-ed in today’s Orange County Register is titled, “A Reagan inspired tax reform plan.” He begins the piece by celebrating the fact that the debate (to be televised by CNN at 8 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday) takes place in Southern California, “the birthplace of the tax-cut movement in America.” He’s right about that. It was in 1978 that Californians voted on Proposition 13, also known as “Jarvis/Gann.” It was named after two Southern California conservative activists, Howard Jarvis, and Paul Gann, who would end losing to Democrat Alan Cranston in a bid for the U.S. Senate in 1980. Prop 13 was a political earthquake. It put a strict cap on property taxes, which in the 1970s were going through the roof in the Golden State. It was opposed by then Governor Jerry Brown, who immediately supported it after it won decisively at the polls. “President Reagan wisely identified that the American people were fed up with paying exorbitant taxes and weary from the failed economic policies of the Jimmy Carter administration,” Bush writes in the piece. “During his run for the presidency in 1980, Reagan put dramatic tax relief at the center of his campaign, calling for an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates. As president, Reagan succeeded in ending the Carter malaise by bringing the top marginal tax rate down from 70 percent to 28 percent and, in the process, unleashing a period of economic growth and prosperity that renewed the American Dream.” Bush then segues to his recently announced tax reform plan, a plan that he says will put the country on a path to 4 percent growth, something that neither his father nor brother was ever able to achieve in their collective 12 years in the White House. “Like President Reagan, I intend to dramatically reform our tax code, consolidating today’s seven brackets to three (28 percent, 25 percent and 10 percent) and eliminating special interest loopholes and carve-outs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.” Bush writes that he will “relish” the opportunity to contrast his vision for sparking economic growth with Donald Trump, who he accuses of having supporting “the liberal big government, high tax philosophy espoused by Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.” Here’s the piece in its entirety: The Republican candidates for president will debate Wednesday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley. It is fitting that this important debate be held in Southern California, the birthplace of the tax-cut movement in America. Thirty-seven years ago, Howard Jarvis, a Southern California businessman and political activist, spearheaded Proposition 13, a ballot measure to place a strict cap on property taxes. Californians, who had endured massive increases in the taxes on their homes, revolted against the status quo in Sacramento and passed Prop. 13 overwhelmingly, sparking a nationwide movement to cut taxes that Ronald Reagan referred in his autobiography to as a “prairie fire.” President Reagan wisely identified that the American people were fed up with paying exorbitant taxes and weary from the failed economic policies of the Jimmy Carter administration. During his run for the presidency in 1980, Reagan put dramatic tax relief at the center of his campaign, calling for an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates. As president, Reagan succeeded in ending the Carter malaise by bringing the top marginal tax rate down from 70 percent to 28 percent and, in the process, unleashing a period of economic growth and prosperity that renewed the American Dream. After six and half years of the Obama administration, the nation again finds itself at a critical crossroads. President Obama has increased taxes by nearly $2 trillion and left us with one of the weakest recoveries in our nation’s history, so weak that, for many, the recession never stopped due to the hardships they are personally experiencing. What these working and middle-class Americans see as a recession, the Democrats and liberal academics call “the new normal.” I refuse to accept that. That is why I have outlined a bold tax reform plan that will help put us on the path to 4 percent economic growth, 19 million new jobs and rising wages for working families. Like President Reagan, I intend to dramatically reform our tax code, consolidating today’s seven brackets to three (28 percent, 25 percent and 10 percent) and eliminating special interest loopholes and carve-outs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Under my plan, millions of working families will have their income tax liabilities eliminated, and the average middle-class family will receive a tax reduction of approximately $2,000. For a working family earning under $40,000, we’ll eliminate their income tax liability altogether. I also am proposing major corporate tax reform to make American businesses more competitive. U.S. businesses pay the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. Under my plan, the top rate would fall from 35 percent to 20 percent, five points lower than China’s corporate rate. This tax cut for job providers will turbocharge our economy, lead to productivity gains and make it possible for American businesses to provide higher wages to their workers, something that is critically important since the middle class hasn’t received a pay raise in 15 years. I relish the opportunity Wednesday to contrast my vision for sparking economic growth and lifting up the middle class with those of other candidates, like Donald Trump, who have supported the liberal big government, high tax philosophy espoused by Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This issue isn’t just about numbers. It’s the difference between working Americans staying ahead or falling behind. The difference between being stuck in this “new normal” or growing at a pace that lifts up everyone. As president, I will be committed to leading in the
