Electoral College Electors Do Not Have Discretion To Vote Contrary to Their State’s Voters 

On July 6, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases about so-called “faithless” electors who in the 2016 Electoral College voted contrary to the majority of their state’s voters in the popular presidential election of that year.[1]

The headnotes in the Chiafalo case that the Court held that a “State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice for President.”

The Opinion of the Court in Chiafalo was written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by all the other justices except Justice Thomas, who filed a separate concurring opinion.

The Court’s Opinion first set forth an extensive review of the history of Article II of the Constitution that established the Electoral College,[2] the Twelfth Amendment of 1804 that required separate votes for President and Vice President in the Electoral College[3] and other relevant history. The Opinion then concluded as follows:

  • “Article and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens. Except that legislatures no longer play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 years. Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others. A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. [The State of Washington imposed a civil fine of up to $1,000 for breach of such a pledge.] Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

=================================

[1] Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 (U.S. Sup Ct. July 6, 2020); Colorado Dept of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 ((per curiam) U.S. Sup. Ct. July 6, 2020)(“The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth circuit is reversed for the reasons stated in Chiafalo v. Washington.” ) See also Liptak, States May curb ‘Faithless Electors,’ Supreme Court Rules, N.Y. times (July 6, 2020); Barnes, Supreme Court says states may require presidential electors to support popular winner, Wash. Post (July 6, 2020).

[2] Article II, sec. 1, cl. 2 states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

[3] The Twelfth Amendment states: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . .; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to [Congress, where] the votes shall then be counted.” The Twelfth Amendment goes on to say, “ The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . . .The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . . “ [This Amendment also established procedures if there is no one with a majority of the votes for either or both offices.]

 

Third Ex-Cop in George Floyd Case Posts Bond and Leaves Jail 

On July 4, Tou Thau, a former Minneapolis police officer charged with aiding and abetting the murder of George Floyd, posted bond of $750,000 and was released with conditions from the Hennepin County Jail.[1] Earlier two other ex-officers charged with the same crime—Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng—had posted the same amount of bond and had been released from jail.[2]

The fourth defendant in the Floyd killing—Derek Chauvin—has not posted a higher bond–$1 million with conditions and $1,250,000 without conditions and thus remains in custody at the Oak Park Heights prison.

==============================

[1] Xiong, Third fired Minneapolis police officer charged in Floyd death is out of jail, StarTribune (July 4, 2020).

[2] Walsh, Fired Minneapolis police officer, Thomas Lane, one of 4 charged in George Floyd’s death, posts bail and leaves jail, StarTribune (June 11, 2020); Another Minneapolis Policeman in George Floyd Cases Makes Bail, dwkcommentaries.com (June 20, 2020).

 

 

Will Upcoming U.S. Presidential Election Be Legitimate? 

Any country that claims to be a democracy in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic should be taking steps to encourage maximum voter participation while protecting voters from risking their health. Such steps would include facilitating voter registration and maximizing the use of voting by mail. That seems self-evident. Yet it is not happening throughout the U.S., and, as is usual in our complex federal system, the rules governing this November’s U.S. election are complicated.[1]

Introduction

While every presidential election year brings an increase in voting rights litigation, the current pandemic has multiplied the number of lawsuits filed in the past 3½ months. Democrats and voting rights advocates are pursuing cases to make it easier to vote by mail, filing more than 60 lawsuits in 25 states.

These lawsuits “are now poised to shape the details of how roughly 130 million registered voters are able to cast ballots in upcoming contests.” However, “conflicting court decisions could exacerbate the differences in voters’ experiences at the ballot box in November. And as the fights play out, the uncertainty is further complicating election officials’ ability to prepare for the vote.”

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Dale Ho, who supervises its voting litigation, says, “I think it’s clear we have a potential disaster on our hands on Election Day if we can’t process as many votes as possible beforehand. The alarm bells are going off. It’s not just some sort of hypothetical as a problem — we’ve seen it as a problem multiple times. It will repeat in November. The question is how much and in how many places and how badly.”

A Democratic elections attorney, Marc Elias, agrees. “When the political branches fail to protect voting rights, it is left to the courts to do that. If the political branches were functioning the way they’re supposed to, you would have Republicans and Democrats agreeing to increase access to absentee voting. You’d be putting in place safeguards to make sure every eligible voter who casts a ballot has that ballot counted. . . . Unfortunately, the Republican Party is taking its cues from Donald Trump.”

Common Cause’s director of voting and elections, Sylvia Albert, said decisions about how to handle voting during a pandemic are not easy but “have to be made.” She added,“There is no waiting it out,” noting that as more time passes, the shorter the window for educating voters about any changes becomes. “As a state legislator, as a secretary of state, as a governor, you are responsible for ensuring that voters can access the ballot. By not moving ahead, they’re really abdicating their responsibility to the voters.”

President Trump’s Opposition to Mail Voting

The principal cause of the problem of this election is President Trump, who has made it clear that he is determined to curtail access to mail ballots, claiming without evidence that their use leads to widespread fraud. “My biggest risk is that we don’t win lawsuits,” the president said in June in an interview with Politico. “We have many lawsuits going all over. And if we don’t win those lawsuits . . . I think it puts the election at risk.” As a result, the GOP is pushing to limit the expansion of voting by mail, backed by a $20 million Republican National Committee effort and help from conservative groups.

However, there is no evidence that mail voting leads to the kind of massive fraud Trump has described. A recent analysis by The Washington Post found that cases of potential fraud have been exceedingly rare in states that conduct voting exclusively by mail.

Nevertheless, with “Republican governors under pressure from President Trump not to expand voting by mail and many legislatures adjourned for the year or deadlocked along party lines, changes in the coming months are likely to come through court decisions.” As a result, this blogger fears that the Trump Administration will do anything and everything to try to steal this year’s presidential election.

Fortunately former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld, has come out against Trump on this (and other) issues. He says,“absentee voting has been around since the Civil War and . . ., increasingly, states both red and blue are not just allowing but also encouraging citizens to vote by mail.”[2]

Indeed, Weld says, “Public support for voting-by-mail was in place long before the novel coronavirus came along. In the past week, Colorado and Utah conducted successful, smooth primary elections almost entirely by mail, with strong turnouts and no need for voters to stand in unhealthy lines. For a highly contested June 23 primary, Kentucky’s Democratic governor and Republican secretary of state worked together to make absentee voting less cumbersome. It worked, and turnout was at near-record levels. . . . The only problems Kentucky encountered resulted from the covid-19-driven consolidation of in-person, Election Day polling places.”

Weld also notes that public opinion polls show nearly 80 percent of voters support giving all voters the option of voting in person or voting absentee. That includes a majority of Republicans — the president’s paranoia notwithstanding.”[3]

Therefore, Weld concludes, “To my fellow Republicans, I plead with you to not follow Trump off this cliff. A political party that brands itself as the party of exclusion, disregard for citizens’ safety and thinly veiled vote suppression is not a party with a future.”

 State Developments on Mail Voting

Here is an attempted analysis of where at least some of the states stand on rules for the November 3, 2020 election.

Alabama. Because of the virus, Alabama officials are allowing any registered voter to cast an absentee ballot in the upcoming election without having to cite a valid reason. In  a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups citing coronavirus dangers, Birmingham-based U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon on June 15 struke down a requirement for absentee voters to submit a copy of a photo ID and to have their ballots signed off by two witnesses or a notary public as well as lifting a statewide ban on curbside voting at polling places. The judge said he would permit willing counties to allow drive-up voting, but he stopped short of requiring such an accommodation. This order was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but on July 2, the U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4,  reversed that order for the July 14 primary runoff election for the U.S. Senate between Jeff Sesssions and Tommy Tuberville.[4]

California, Nebraska (counties < 10,000) and North Dakota provide counties the option to conduct all voting by mail. In addition, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (Dem.) ordered election officials to proactively send absentee ballots to all active registered voters in the state for the general election. This move drew fierce opposition from the right, including a lawsuit from the Republican National Committee, but the change subsequently was authorized by a new state law.[5]

Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington authorize all voting by mail. “For these elections, all registered voters receive a ballot in the mail. The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off.”[6]

District of Columbia. It will send absentee ballots to all registered voters.

Georgia. The GOP Secretary of State mailed absentee ballot request forms to voters for the June 9 primaries. The Republican House Speaker, however, warned that expanded absentee voting could lead to fraud, and a state House committee approved a measure that would bar the mailing of absentee request forms for the fall, but the bill failed to pass before the legislature adjourned. The Georgia Secretary of State, however, already had said his office lacked funds to send ballot request applications for the general election, even though,

“By a wide margin, voters on both sides of the political spectrum agree that sending absentee applications to all active voters was the safest and best thing our office could do to protect our voters at the peak of COVID-19.”

Illinois and Michigan. This year these states will mail absentee ballot applications to all registered voters.

Iowa. Gov. Kim Reynolds (Rep.) signed a bill into law that will require the secretary of state to seek legislative approval to send absentee ballot request forms to voters before November. This was seen as a rebuke to Iowa’s Republican Secretary of State, who mailed the forms to voters for the primary last month, resulting in a new turnout record for a June primary in the state.

Massachusetts. For the rest of this year this commonwealth has chosen to abandon its requirement for an excuse for an absentee ballot.

Missouri. As a result of an ACLU lawsuit, the Missouri Legislature adopted a statute expanding voting by mail during the pandemic, while retaining the statutory requirement for a notarization of the ballot with the legitimacy of that requirement still being litigated under a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court.[7]

Pennsylvania. The Trump campaign recently sued to stop voters from using drop boxes to return completed absentee ballots and block ballots from being counted if they do not arrive inside the provided secrecy envelope. The Complaint alleged that mail voting “provides fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos.” The Democratic Party obviously is opposing this lawsuit

Tennessee. Last month a Nashville judge ruled that any eligible voter who is concerned about contracting covid-19 at a polling place may cast an absentee ballot this fall, even though state law would typically require that voter to qualify using an excuse. The state Supreme Court declined last week to stay that decision after a request from Republican Secretary of State Tre Hargett.

Texas. The Texas Democratic Party and several voters sued in federal court to allow all eligible Texas voters to vote by mail, at least during the coronavirus pandemic, on the ground that the state’s over-65 age limitation for such voting allegedly was unconstitutional, which contention was upheld by a trial court’s injunction, but reversed by the appellate court with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26th rejecting an emergency appeal by the plaintiffs and remanding the case to the appellate court. (Justice Sotomayor urged the appellate court to consider the case “well in advance of the November election”).[8]

Wisconsin. On June 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that after more than three years, Wisconsin must reinstate several Republican-backed voting restrictions, including limits on early voting. The original GOP policies were struck down in 2016 for discriminating against minority voters, a conclusion the appellate panel rejected this week.[9]

Guarding Legitimacy of this Year’s Presidential Election

Great concern over the integrity of this presidential election has been expressed by William A. Galston, the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program, a former policy advisor to President Clinton and a Wall Street Journal columnist.  He said, “After a quarter-century of toxic division, our democracy is imperiled. A contested election could tip the U.S. into a devastating crisis of legitimacy, a prospect that every patriot must regard with dismay.”[10]

Therefore, Galston suggested four ways to minimize the risks in this upcoming election.

First, “To reduce pressure on the mail-in option, localities must provide the fullest possible opportunity to vote in person, as New York University law professor Richard A. Pildes has argued. This means increasing the number of polling places while expanding opportunities for early voting. Many elderly poll workers will be reluctant to do the job this year; large numbers of younger Americans should be recruited and trained to replace them. Schools should continue to serve as polling places, as they have for decades, and Election Day should be a school holiday.”

Second, “states should do what they can to facilitate the fastest possible count of mail-in ballots. Mr. Pildes recommends processing the mail-in ballots that arrive before Election Day so that they can be tallied in time for the results to be included in the count soon after the polls close, a procedure that California now employs. Other states—including Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania—would have to change their laws to permit this, and they should.”

Third, “As Nathaniel Persily, a co-director of the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project points out, the media have a crucial role to play as well. Reporters should educate themselves and the public about the all but certain delay in the vote count that the flood of mail-in ballots will entail. Above all, media organizations should resist the urge to call the election ahead of their competitors and instead wait until enough ballots have been tallied to know the result with confidence. In the past, ill-judged early calls of key states have sown confusion. This year, the consequences could be far worse.”

Fourth, “America’s elder statesmen must do all they can to ensure election integrity. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should spearhead the formation of a bipartisan committee including respected figures such as former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle and Trent Lott, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta and Robert Gates, along with lawyers and election experts from both parties who have served in previous presidential campaigns. Committee staff should be ready to investigate charges of fraud as soon as they arise and observe the counting of mail-in ballots if asked. Committee leaders should announce their findings as quickly as accuracy permits and stand united in their defense.”

Such a committee’s “most important tasks would be meetings soon after Labor Day with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. These leaders should be asked for a public pledge to stand together against unsubstantiated claims that the election has been stolen and to do their utmost to persuade elected officials in their respective parties to stand with them.”

Conclusion

In addition to all of the above litigation, the Supreme Court still has to resolve two cases about so-called “faithless” electors in the Electoral College that actually elects the President. Presumably decisions in those two cases will come down this coming week and will be discussed in a future post.[11]

Another future post will examine ways to create stronger voting rights from Richard L. Hasen, Professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine and the author of “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust and the Threat to American Democracy.”

Comments to this post for corrections and supplementation for new developments are earnestly solicited.

===================================1~

[1] See generally Viebeck, Voting rules changed quickly for the primaries. But the battle over how Americans will cast ballots in the fall is just heating up, Wash. Post (July 3, 2020).

[2] Weld, Please, Republicans don’t join Trump’s crusade against voting-by-mail, Wash. Post (July 3, 2020). See also Strauss, ‘We’ve got to do something’: Republican rebels come together to take on Trump, Guardian (July 2, 2020).

[3] See also Brennan Center for Justice, Americans of All Stripes Want a Mail Ballot Option.

[4] Liptak, Splitting 5-4, Supreme Court Grants Alabama’s Request to Restore Voting Restrictions, N.Y. Times (July 2, 2020); Gerstein, Supreme Court blocks judge’s order loosening Alabama voting requirements due to virus, Politico (July 2, 2020).

[5] National Conf. State Legislatures, All-Mail Elections (aka Vote-By-Mail).

[6] Ibid.

[7] ACLU, Press Release: Court Rules Lawsuit To Allow All Missourians to Vote By Mail Without a Notary During Covid-19 Can Proceed (June 23, 2020).

[8] Liptak, Supreme Court Turns down Request to Allow All Texans to Vote by Mail, N.Y.Times (June 26, 2020); Assoc. Press, Supreme Court doesn’t wade into mail-in voting battle, Wash. Post (June 26, 2020); Barnes, Supreme Court won’t force Texans to allow absentee ballots for all voters, Wash. Post (June 26, 2020).

[9] Earlier this year there was federal court litigation over the Wisconsin primary election that lead to counting of ballots that had been mailed no later than election day. (See these posts and comments to dwkcommentaries.com: Pandemic Journal (# 10): Wisconsin Primary Election (April 10, 2020); Comment: More Criticism of Republican Strategy of Limiting Voting (April 12, 2020; Comment: More Comments on Wisconsin Election (April 13, 2020); Comment: Surprising Results in Wisconsin Election (April 14, 2020); Commnet: George F. Will’s Opinion on Voting By Mail (VBM) (April 15, 2020); Comment: Emerging Battles Over Changing State Election Laws (April 15, 2020); Comment: New York Times Editorial on Wisconsin Election (April 20, 2020; Comment: Thousands of Wisconsin Absentee Ballots Counted After Election Day (May 3, 2020).

[10] Galston, How to Prevent an Electoral Crisis, W.S.J. (June 30, 2020).

[11] Liptak, Supreme Court Seems Ready to Curb ‘Faithless Electors,’ N.Y. Times (May 13, 2020); Wegman, The Electoral College Is a Confusing Mess, N.Y.Times (May 13, 2020).

 

 

 

Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer: “Take the Next Best Step”  

On June 21, Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer, Professor at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, engaged in an enriching and enjoyable online conversation with Rev. Dr. Matt Skinner, Professor at Luther Seminary and Scholar for Adult Education at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, as part of a series of  “Conversations on Big Questions for a Changing Church.”[1]

She emphasized that the Bible was not a scientific record. It is a library, not just one book. It emphasizes that the world is not just physical or material, but proclaims an enchanted world of belief and hope for love and justice beyond the physical world. Everyone is made in the image of God and should be caring for one another and calling for love and justice. Jesus testifies to that vision.

While justice and grace are both important in Christian faith, too much emphasis on grace can tend to emphasize the status quo. The parables about the importance of looking for the one lost coin from a collection of 10 coins or the shepherd looking for the one lost sheep emphasize the need to work for justice. The prophets tell us that you will be in exile no matter how good you are. We need to sing God’s song in a foreign land.

The current pandemics of coronavirus and racism are unveiling major problems in the U.S. empire and U.S. churches. For example, in the early years of this country, churches baptized slaves without emancipating them. The Presbyterian church in the U.S. split into northern and southern denominations over slavery. All  have been complicit in discrimination against Blacks, Natives, women and transgender people. We need the grace of God and our intangible qualities—trusting one another in community, praying for one another and having difficult conversations. We need to be “enchanting the world” with the hope of a force beyond the physical and material world to call for love and justice.

Thus, there is a need for Presbyterians and other churches to reform. We need to again recognize we are not perfect. “Reformed, always reforming.” Our tradition emphasizes talking the next best step. After that, there will be another next best step. (This especially resonated with me. It emphasizes the importance of incremental change and of avoiding the impotence of trying to understand every facet of a problem before acting to change some aspect of the problem.)

The Bible can be seen as migrant literature. Many of the Bible’s words are responses from outsiders to what was happening in the world of the Roman Empire. They are cries for justice and the rants of prophets. Many characters in the Bible have two names and thus are bicultural and provide migratory strategies for survival.

Professor Aymer made all of these points with graceful smiles and laughter. Thank you, Professor. (Others who have reactions to this conversation are invited to share them in comments to this post.)

================================

[1] Aymer & Skinner, Conversation on Big Questions for a Changing Church, Westminster Adult Education Hour (June 21, 2020).

 

Pandemic Journal (# 26): Reflections on Life During the Pandemic  

Here are my latest reflections on living through this pandemic.

The morning news on July 1 reported that there have been 10,483,100 people in the world who have been sickened with the coronavirus with 511,540 deaths, all occurring in nearly every country in the world. For the U.S. the numbers are 2,653,200 cases and 127,461 deaths. The recent hotspots are Arizona, Florida, California, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Washington and Mississippi.[1] My state of Minnesota has had 36,338 cases and 1,476 deaths.[2]

On June 30 in testimony to a U.S. Senate committee, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said  the rate of new coronavirus infections could more than double to 100,000 a day if current outbreaks were not contained, warning that the virus’s march across the South and the West “puts the entire country at risk.” He added, ““I can’t make an accurate prediction, but it is going to be very disturbing, I will guarantee you that [3]because when you have an outbreak in one part of the country, even though in other parts of the country they are doing well, they are vulnerable.”

These are grim statistics and predictions that are endlessly noted in newspapers and television and radio news programs. As an 81-year-old who has been isolated in his downtown Minneapolis condo building since March 19, all I can do is continue to spend time in my condo with my wife, wear a face mask and “physical distance” at least six feet from other people when I leave the condo to buy groceries, walk in nearby parks and go biking.

While in the condo most of my time is spent reading multiple newspapers on my computer and writing blog posts, usually watching MSNBC at night and occasionally other programs. I have to make time to read books for my men’s book group. Within the last week our building’s swimming pool, hot tub and exercise facilities have re-opened to one or two persons at a time, and I have started to use them again.

I have noted the reports that on June 28, Gilead Sciences announced the pricing for the drug remdesivir, the first drug authorized by the U.S. for treatment of COVID-19. The prices were $3,120 for commercially insured U.S. patients (for the shorter treatment course at $520 per dose) and $5,720 for the longer treatment course. For certain U.S. government programs (but not Medicare or Medicaid) and the rest of the world, the price will be $2,340 (for the shorter course at $390 per dose) and $4,290 (for the longer treatment course).These prices were deemed reasonable by the supposedly independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review on the basis that use of the drug was expected to enable earlier discharge from the hospital and thereby “save” additional hospital expenses. Gilead’s shares suffered a small decline after the announcement based on certain analysts’ belief that the prices for the drug would be higher.[4]

In my opinion, this is a strange way to assess whether a price is reasonable. The proper method, I thought, was to calculate the cost of producing the drug or other product, after subtracting any costs that had been paid for by the government (or by converting that financial contribution into common or preferred stock and paying dividends to the government), and then adding a percentage of the cost as profit, whose reasonableness could then be assessed.

On May 25th I was shocked to hear the news that George Floyd, an African-American man, had been killed by Minneapolis police in south Minneapolis about 3.5 miles from our condo building. To see the teenage bystander’s video of the last minutes of this human being’s life was excruciating. I did not attend any of the immediate protests at this site, but a couple of weeks ago on a pleasant weekday morning, my wife and I visited the site, which felt like visiting the memorial to a martyred saint. As a result, most of my blog posts since then have been about this killing and the related issues of reforming the Minneapolis and other police departments.

Although I believe that the Minneapolis Police Department needs various reforms, I do not support the City Council’s proposed amendment to the City Charter, which will be discussed in a future post.

I also worry about the U.S. and world economy and the financial struggles of so many people, small businesses, political campaigns and our many worthy nonprofit organizations. This concern was voiced in the June 30th testimony of  Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome H. Powell before the House Financial Services Committee. He stated that although May employment and sales numbers were better than expected, the path forward would depend on both how the virus evolved and a willingness at all levels of government to provide policy support as long as necessary.[5]

I continue to be grateful that I am retired and not worried about keeping or finding a job. Instead I sort through the many requests for contributions and notices of webinars and other ZOOM meetings. I try to respond as I am able.

My church, Westminster Presbyterian in downtown Minneapolis, is shut down because of the pandemic. But every Sunday morning at 10:30 a.m.it has a worship service on ZOOM that is broadcast in the afternoon on local TV station KSTP. Also available on ZOOM are other services on Sundays at 5:00 p.m. and on Wednesdays at 6:00 p.m. Adult education is available on Sundays at 9:15—10:15 a.m. on Zoom. Check the church’s Livestream button for details.

Especially enriching have been Westminster’s conversations with other pastors and theologians about important issues. A future post will discuss the June 21st “Conversation on Big Questions for a Changing Church” between Westminster’s Scholar for Adult Education, Rev. Dr. Matt Skinner, who is a Professor at Luther Seminary, with Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

I also continue to be shocked by the incompetence and outrageous comments from the mouth of President Trump and have to restrain myself from letting them distract me.

=============================

[1] Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Global Outbreak, N.Y. Times (July 1, 2020, 9:32 am (EDT)); Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times (July 1, 2020, 9:32 am (EDT).

[2] Minnesota Coronavirus Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times (July 1, 2020, 9:32 am (EDT)); Carlson, Minnesota deaths up 6, to 1,441, in COVID-19 pandemic, StarTribune (June 30, 2020).

[3] Stelberg & Weiland, Fauci Says U.S. Could Reach 100,000 Virus cases a Day as Warnings Grow Darker, N.Y. Times (June 30 & July 1, 2020)/

[4] Walker, Covid-19 Drug Remdesivir to Cost $3,120 for Typical Patient, W.S.J. (June 29, 2020); Grant, Gilead Is Wise to Leave Remdesivir Money on the Table, W.S.J. (June 29, 2020); Carlson, COVID-19 drug price deemed ‘reasonable,’ StarTribune (June 29, 2020).

[5] Rappeport & Smialek, Mnuchin and Powell Offer Mixed Views of Economic Recovery, N.Y. Times (June 30, 2020).

 

 

Pretrial Hearing in Criminal Cases Over George Floyd Killing

On June 29, Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill held a pretrial hearing in the George Floyd criminal cases against Derek Chauvin,Tou Thao,Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng.[1]

The judge scheduled another pretrial hearing for September 11 and for the trial tentatively to start on March 8. Although the prosecutors seem to be pushing for a consolidated trial, defense counsel are expected to request separate trials so that should be a future issue for the court to resolve.

None of the officers entered pleas at the hearing, but Lane’s attorney told the court he would be filing a motion to dismiss the case against his client for alleged insufficiency of evidence. Afterwards Kueng’s attorney filed a document with the court advising that his client intends to plead not guilty, claiming self-defense and use of reasonable and authorized force.

One of the major issues at the hearing was whether public officials’ statements about the cases might call for a change of venue from Minneapolis in Hennepin County to another county. Robert Paule, the attorney for Thao, said he was planning to make such a motion in light of public statements by Police Chief Arradondo and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Harrington, who have called Floyd’s death a “murder,” along with other statements by Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison.

Judge Cahill acknowledged these statements, and said people who are aligned with the state’s stance on the case are pushing it toward a change of venue. “It’s in everyone’s best interest” that no public statements about the case be made, the Judge said, noting that they’ve come from family, friends and law enforcement officials. “What they’re doing is endangering the right to a fair trial” for all the parties.

“They need to understand that; at this point they need to be aware of that,” Cahill said, and asked Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank if prosecutors are addressing the matter with public officials. In response, Frank said, “We are just as interested in fair trial and are acutely aware of the issues you talk about. We have asked people not to talk about this case … we’ve done our best to make the court’s concerns known to them and will continue to do so.”

The Judge also admonished two members of Floyd’s family for visibly reacting to his statements at the hearing. Afterwards George Floyd’s uncle, Selwyn Jones, told journalists he was offended by the Judge’s comments.

============================

[1] Xiong, Former officers to appear in court Monday in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (June 29, 2020); Xiong, In George Floyd case,  judge warns that public officials speaking out could force venue change, StarTribune (June 30, 2020); Neuman, Tentative Trial Date Set For Ex-Minneapolis Officers Accused in George Floyd Death, MPR News (June 29, 2020); Chakraborty, Four ex-cops Linked to George Floyd’s death appear in court, judge sets 2021 trial date, Fox News (June 29, 2020); Bailey & Berman, Ex-Minneapolis officers charged in George Floyd’s killing get tentative trial date in March, Wash. Post (June 29, 2020); Arango, In Court, Derek Chauvin’s Lawyers Say Officials Have Biased the Case, N.Y. Times (June 29, 2020); Wernau & Barrett, Officers charged in George Floyd’s Killing Appear Before Judge, W.S.J. (June 30, 2020); George Floyd judge warns he may move trials if officials keep talking about the case, Guardian (June 29, 2020).

 

 

 

Developments in Criminal Cases Over Death of George Floyd

The four defendants in the criminal cases over the death of George Floyd last week made an unusual request for pretrial and trial audiovisual coverage which the court denied, in part. The issues in the cases were analyzed by criminal law experts. And some personal background information of the four defendants have been publicly discussed. After examining these developments, we will  await the results of the pretrial hearing in the four cases on June 29th.[1]

 Motion for Pretrial and Trial Audiovisual Recording [2]

On June 25 the attorneys for the four criminal defendants made a motion for audiovisual recording of pretrial and trial proceedings in the cases. Thomas Plunkett, the attorney for J. Alexander Kueng, on behalf of all defendants, asserted that such relief was “necessary to provide the Defendants with a fair trial in light of the State’s and other governmental actors multiple inappropriate comments and to assure an open hearing in light of the ongoing pandemic.” Those officials, said Plunkett, included “Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo.”

More specifically, Plunkett said, “this relief is necessary to blunt the effects of the increasing and repeated media attacks from the various officials who have breached their duty to the community. These State comments have crescendoed to an extraordinary volume this week with the Chief pronouncing that ‘[w]hat happened to Mr. Floyd was murder.’ The State’s conduct has made a fair and unbiased trial extremely unlikely and the Defendants seek video and audio coverage to let a cleansing light shine on these proceedings. Doing otherwise allows these public officials to geld the Constitution.”

Attorney General Keith Ellison responded by saying that although he supports a public trial, “Cameras could alter the way the lawyers present evidence. Cameras in the courtroom could subject the participants in the trial to heightened media scrutiny and thereby be distracting to conducting the trial.” The chances of  “creating more sensation than understanding” was “very high,” Ellison said.

The Hennepin County District Judge, Peter Cahill, immediately denied the motion for such pretrial coverage while reserving decision on the motion for such coverage of the trial. The Judge stated that Minnesota court rules require both the defense and prosecution to agree for such coverage for pretrial proceedings and that the prosecution did not so agree. In addition, said the Judge, such coverage “would risk tainting a potential Hennepin County jury pool.”

Analysis of Issues in These Criminal Cases[3]

A journalist reports, “Veteran defense attorneys say the prosecution’s case against Chauvin is strong, while a series of unique circumstances pose challenges to both prosecutors and defense attorneys.”

Several facets of these cases seem to favor the prosecution. These cases do not involve “split-second” decisions on use of force which often lead a jury to avoid second guessing such decisions. Moreover, “Floyd warned the officers of his own impending death after repeatedly telling them he couldn’t breathe,” and bystanders were making the same warning. Finally the three officers charged with “aiding and abetting” could cause a crack in the alleged “blue wall of silence” protecting officers.

Indeed, at their initial appearances, the attorneys for Lane and Kueng argued that their clients were rookies who relied on Chauvin, a 19-year veteran and their training officer, for guidance at the scene.

A prominent local criminal defense attorney, Joe Friedberg, thought that Lane’s twice suggesting turning Floyd over and later performing CPR on him was strong evidence he had no intent for Floyd to die.

Another local criminal defense attorney, Robert Richman, had a different reaction. He thought that Chauvin “could direct the blame at Lane, who was holding down Floyd’s leg as Floyd lay stomach-down in the street, and Kueng, who was holding onto Floyd’s back. It seems that keeping someone … in a prone position on your stomach and having pressure placed on your back causes respiratory difficulties.” Perhaps “it was the other two officers holding him down that caused the breathing difficulties,” rather than Chauvin kneeling on the side of Floyd’s neck.

Another complication was the existence of two different autopsy reports. “The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office found that Floyd died when his heart stopped  while he was being restrained, noting that the presence of fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine were “other significant conditions” while the autopsy commissioned by the attorneys for Floyd’s family said he died of asphyxia. These provide bases for defense arguments that Floy had started to die before Chauvin put his knee on the neck.

New Rule for Use of Bodycam Footage[4]

On June 27 Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced a new rule for officers’ review of their body camera footage. Now the officer “as soon as practical” must write and submit his or her written report of the incident before looking at that footage and before talking with anyone other than the incident commander and the lead investigator. This new rule purportedly will provide a more accurate account of the officer’s recollection of the incident.

The Police Officers’ Backgrounds[5]

The police personnel files for the four officers and published articles reveal the following  details:

  • Derek Chauvin. He attended Park High School in Cottage Grove, Minnesota, but did not graduate. After getting his GED he attended Dakota County Technical College, Inver Hills Community College and Metropolitan State University, all in Minnesota. Previous jobs include working security, and food service including at a McDonald’s. Chauvin also had two periods of active service in the U.S. Army. From September 1996 to February 1997 he was stationed in Rochester, Minnesota with a job in military police. He served again from September 1999 to May 2000 in military police, at Hohenfels, Germany where his job duties as including criminal investigations, traffic enforcement and proactive patrol.

During his 19-year career with the Minneapolis Police Department, Chauvin was involved with several police shootings, includes both commendations and more than 15 conduct complaints. Almost all the complaints were closed without discipline, records show, suggesting the allegations weren’t sustained. The nature of the complaints wasn’t made public. The file includes a 2008 letter of reprimand Chauvin received for the two violations involving “discretion” and a squad car camera. “This case will remain a B violation and can be used as progressive discipline for three years,” the letter notes. Chauvin received a Medal of Commendation in 2008 for disarming a man outside the El Nuevo Rodeo club on E. Lake Street while working security off-duty in his uniform. He was also recommended for a Medal of Valor in 2006 related to the shooting death of Wayne Reyes, a stabbing suspect who fled in his truck with officers in pursuit. When Reyes stopped and climbed out of the truck, police said he swung his sawed-off shotgun toward the six officers, all of whom fired their weapons.

Chauvin his married , but immediately after his arrest for the Floyd death, she filed for divorce with her attorney saying, “She is devastated by Mr. Floyd’s death and her utmost sympathy lies with his family, with his loved ones and with everyone who is grieving this tragedy.”

  • Tou Thao. The 11-year veteran and native Hmong speaker from Coon Rapids, Minnesota first applied to the department as a community service officer following stints in food service and as a security guard. He was among those laid off three days before Christmas in 2009 as the police department faced a $13 million budget shortfall. In a termination letter, a supervisor assured him the action was not related to his job performance. Officials called him back to work almost exactly two years later.

Thao and another officer were the subjects of a 2017 police brutality lawsuit. Lamar Ferguson, a black man, alleged that in 2014 the two officers told him they were serving a warrant for his arrest, then beat him, breaking his teeth, while he was handcuffed. The city of Minneapolis paid $25,000 to settle the civil rights case.

  • Thomas Lane. A University of Minnesota graduate in sociology of law, criminology and deviance. He worked with at-risk youth as a juvenile detention guard and probation officer in the Twin Cities before applying as a police recruit at age 35. He also had volunteer work mentoring Somali youth and school kids.
  • Alexander Koenig. At age 26, he is the youngest of the four officers and is of mixed-race and identifies as African-American. In 2010 he and two siblings made several trips to Haiti to help at an orphanage, once after its 2010 earthquake.He was captain of the varsity soccer team at Patrick Henry High School in Minneapolis, where he graduated in 2012. He also played for the Cruz Azul Minnesota soccer club. He attended Monroe College, Minneapolis Community & Technical College and the University of Minnesota, graduating from the last in 2018 with a major in sociology of law, criminology and deviance and becoming conversational in the Russian language. His work history includes a job as security monitor at the University of Minnesota and working in loss prevention at Macy’s. He also worked at Target, and he coached youth baseball and soccer at the Brooklyn Center Community Center.

Kueng had seen a sibling arrested and treated poorly by sheriff’s deputies and had told friends he was joining the police to help protect people close to him from police aggression as the best way to fix a broken system.

===========================

[1] This blog has published posts about the Floyd death and related issues of police reform. See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing; List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Police Reform.

[2]  Xiong & Montemayor, Judge denies audiovisual coverage of hearings for former officers charged in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (June 26, 2020).

[3] Xiong, In trial over George Floyd’s killing, both defense, prosecution face unique challenges, StarTribune (June 27, 2020).

[4]] Klecker, Minneapolis mayor, police chief announce tighter body-camera rules, StarTribune (June 29, 2020).

[5] Bjorhus & Sawyer, Personnel records shed light on four Minneapolis police officers charged in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (June 4, 2020); Bjorhus, A deeper look at the four officers fired after George Floyd death, StarTribune (June 1, 2020); Barker, Eligon & Furber, Officers Charged in George Floyd’s Death Not Likely to Present United Front, N.Y.Times (June 4, 2020); Barker, The Black Officer Who Detained George Floyd Had Pledged to Fix the Police, N.Y. Times (June 27, 2020); Wernau, The Other Police Officers Charged in George Floyd Killing, W.S.J. (June 29, 2020).

 

Congress Fails To Pass Federal Police Reform Bills   

On June 24 and 25, the divisions between the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate and the Democrat-controlled U.S. House again emerged, this time to prevent, in all likelihood, the adoption of any federal police reform bills this year.

U.S. Senate[1]

On June 24 the Senate was prepared to debate The Justice Act, a bill authored by Senator Tim Scott (Rep., SC), that would encourage state and local police departments to change their practices, by limiting the use of chokeholds, requiring new de-escalation training for officers and better systems for tracking misconduct  and penalizing departments that did not require the use of body cameras. It, however,  would not alter the qualified immunity doctrine that shields officers from lawsuits or place new federal restrictions on the use of lethal force.

The Senate Democrats criticized this bill as insufficient to respond to the problem of systemic racism in law enforcement as the basis for an objection to consideration of the bill. This forced a motion for consideration that, under Senate rules, needs at least 60 votes to pass, but only had 55 votes with Democrats Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Independent Angus King of Maine joining 52 Republicans. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Rep., Tenn.) voted against that motion so that subsequently he could make a motion for reconsideration by announcing his intent to switch his vote.

After this defeat, Senator Scott stated on the floor that he had had offered to give Democrats as many as 20 votes on proposed modifications to his bill that they were demanding, but that they had refused to accept. Privately, Democrats noted that revising the bill would have also required the approval of 60 senators, a threshold they feared they would not be able to meet.

It is still possible that the Scott bill could be brought up again this year in the Senate by the Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell switching his vote from “Yes” to “No” on a motion for reconsideration.

In the meantime, on June 25 the Senate by unanimous consent separately passed a provision of Mr. Scott’s bill to establish a commission on the social status of black men and boys, tasked with recommending policies to improve government programs.

U.S. House[2]

 On June 25, the U.S. House passed, 236-181, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Representative Karen Bass (Dem., CA), the lead sponsor of the bill, said, “The legislation is the first-ever bold, comprehensive approach to hold police accountable, change the culture of law enforcement, empower our communities, and build trust between law enforcement and our communities by addressing systemic racism and bias to help save lives. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass (D-CA), Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 on June 8, 2020. The legislation has 231 cosponsors in the House and 36 cosponsors in the Senate.”

“Under the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, for the first time ever federal law would: 1) ban chokeholds; 2) end racial and religious profiling; 3) eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement;[3] 4) establish national standard for the operation of police departments; 5) mandate data collection on police encounters; 6) reprogram existing funds to invest in transformative community-based policing programs; and 7) streamline federal law to prosecute excessive force and establish independent prosecutors for police investigations.”  In greater detail, the Act:

  • “Prohibits federal, state, and local law enforcement from racial, religious and discriminatory profiling, and mandates training on racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling for all law enforcement.
  • Bans chokeholds, carotid holds and no-knock warrants at the federal level and limits the transfer of military-grade equipment to state and local law enforcement.
  • Mandates the use of dashboard cameras and body cameras for federal offices and requires state and local law enforcement to use existing federal funds to ensure the use of police body cameras.
  • Establishes a National Police Misconduct Registry to prevent problematic officers who are fired or leave on agency from moving to another jurisdiction without any accountability.
  • Amends federal criminal statute from “willfulness” to a “recklessness” standard to successfully identify and prosecute police misconduct.
  • Reforms qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights.
  • Establishes public safety innovation grants for community-based organizations to create local commissions and task forces to help communities to re-imagine and develop concrete, just and equitable public safety approaches.
  • Creates law enforcement development and training programs to develop best practices and requires the creation of law enforcement accreditation standard recommendations based on President Obama’s Taskforce on 21st Century policing.
  • Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report use of force data, disaggregated by race, sex, disability, religion, age.
  • Improves the use of pattern and practice investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power and creates a grant program for state attorneys general to develop authority to conduct independent investigations into problematic police departments.
  • Establishes a Department of Justice task force to coordinate the investigation, prosecution and enforcement efforts of federal, state and local governments in cases related to law enforcement misconduct.”

It would make lynchings a federal hate crime, ban federal officials from using chokeholds, ban federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that do not bar chokeholds, bar law enforcement from racial and religious profiling, make it easier to prosecute police officers for misconduct and allow civilians to recover some damages if their constitutional rights are found to have been violated by police, a change to the judicial doctrine known as qualified immunity.

It should be noted that three Republican representatives voted for this bill: Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Will Hurd (TX) and Fred Upton (MI).

 Conclusion

As a Democrat you supports various means of reforming policing in the U.S., I am disappointed that the Congress was unable to agree on such measures.

However, I think it was a political mistake for the Senate Democrats to block consideration of the Senator Tim Scott reform bill. As I understand what happened in the Senate, the Democrats had no objections to the bill’s provisions. Instead, they objected that the bill did not go far enough. Their objections could have been made during the debate on the Scott bill, with or without proposed amendments that probably would be defeated by the Republican majority. Moreover, by allowing the Republicans to approve the bill would allow the Democrats to provide political support to Republican Senator Tim Scott.

This assessment was shared by Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, a Fox News contributor and a Washington Post columnist,  He emphasized that stopping such a debate in the Senate eliminated the possibility of having such a discussion in that body for the foreseeable future and even the possibility of having some Democratic amendments adopted. Thiessen claims that the bill already included some Democratic proposed additions: making lynching a federal hate crime, creating a national policing commission to review the U.S. criminal justice system, barring chokeholds by federal officers, withholding federal funds from state and local law enforcement agencies that do not bar chokeholds and that do not report use of non-knock warrants to the U.S. Justice Department. Indeed, according to Thiessen, Senator Scott had said he would vote to support  some of the proposed amendments.[4]

Such a Democratic strategy also would have avoided the embarrassing comment by Senator Richard Durbin (Dem., IL) that the Scott bill was “a token, half-hearted approach,” by an African-American man who personally had experienced police discrimination that compelled the subsequent apology from Senator Durbin.

Moreover, the Democrat-controlled House the next day adopted the more comprehensive reform bill which they wanted and which the Republican-controlled Senate undoubtedly will reject when it goes there.

============================

[1] U.S. Senate, Justice Act, 116th Congress, 2d Sess. (full text); U.S. Senate, JUSTICE Act (Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere): Section-by-Section Analysis,  116th Congress, 2d Sess.; Senator Scott, Press Release: Senator Tim Scott Delivers Fiery Speech on Senate floor After Senate Democrats Stonewall Legislation on Police Reform Across America (June 24, 2020); Senator Scott, Press Release: Senate Democrats Block Police Reform from Coming to Communities Across America (June 24, 2020); Edmondson & Fandos, Senate G.O.P. Unveils Narrow Policing Bill, Setting Up a Clash with Democrats, N.Y. Times (June 17 & 24, 2020); Edmondson, Senate Democrats Block G.O.P. Police bill, calling It Inadequate, N.Y.Times (June 24, 2020); Kim, Senate Democrats block GOP policing bill, stalling efforts to change law enforcement practices, Wash. Post (June 24, 2020); Balko, Both parties’ police reform bills ae underwhelming. Here’s why, Wash. Post (June 24, 2020); Peterson & Zitner, Senate Democrats Block GOP Policing Bill, W.S.J. (June 24, 2020); Editorial, The No Debate Democrats, W.S.J. (June 24, 2020); Bobi, Police Reform Stalls Out in The Senate, HuffPost (June 24, 2020).

[2] Representative Bass, Press Release: House Passes George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (June 25, 2020); George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (full text);  Congressional Black Caucus, Fact Sheet: George Floyd Justice in Policing Act ; House Passes George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2020); Andrews, House Passes Democrats’ Policing Bill, but No Path Seen for Deal, W.S.J. (June 25, 2020); Carney, Gridlock mires chances of police reform bill, The Hill (June 25, 2020); Brufke, Three GOP lawmakers vote for Democrat-led police reform bill, The Hill (June 25, 2020).

[3] The qualified immunity defense was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) that victims can’t recover damages from the city under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 unless the police misconduct was a breach of an “official policy or custom.” Subsequent Supreme Court cases have reaffirmed that standard to limit liability to “the plainly incompetent” and “those who knowingly violate the law.” (Malley v. Briggs (1986); Mccleary v. Navarro (1982), and just this month the Court refused to hear current cases challenging that standard. (Reuters, Supreme Court Rejects Cases Over ‘Qualified Immunity’ for Police, N.Y. times (June 15, 2020).)  As Peter Schuck, a professor emeritus at Yale Law School, pointed out, a simple amendment of that 1871 statute would eliminate this defense. (Schuck, The Other Police Immunity Problem, W.S.J. (June 24, 2020).) 

[4] Theissen, Democrats’ shameful vote against Tim Scott’s police reform bill, Wash. Post (June 25, 2020).

 

Minneapolis Police Chief and Union President Agree: Chauvin Rightfully Fired for Killing George Floyd 

On June 22 and 23, the Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo and the President of the Police union, Bob Kroll, agreed that the firing of Police Officer Derek Chauvin over the killing of George Floyd was justified.

DerikPolice Chief’s Statement[1]

“In Spring of 2013, the City settled the David Smith lawsuit, agreeing to pay the estate of David Smith $1.1 million and his attorneys $1.975 million. In addition to this payment, the City agreed “to provide additional training to its sworn police officers regarding positional asphyxia in the Minneapolis Police Department’s 2014 training cycle.”

“Today, in response to data requests, the City is releasing data on the training after the Smith settlement.”[2]

“I can confirm that MPD fulfilled the training requirement. 2014 in-service training, which was given to all officers, covered getting an arrestee from a prone position into a recovery position (seated or on the arrestee’s side) where the maximal restraint technique or a neck restraint has been used. The reason for getting an arrestee into a recovery position is to prevent positional asphyxiation, and the training covered situations where positional asphyxiation is of primKARE-11ary concern. This training therefore met the settlement agreement’s requirement of “additional training . . . regarding positional asphyxiation.” I can confirm that Chauvin and Thoa had this training.” (Emphasis added.)

“Additionally, MPD went beyond the requirements of the settlement and enacted policy changes in June 2014. The policy changes explicitly require moving an arrestee from a prone position to a recovery position when the maximal restraint technique is used and require continuous monitoring of an arrestee’s condition.”

“It is important to note that getting an arrestee into a position where he or she can breathe is something that is hammered into all of our officers, and this began even before the Smith settlement’s required 2014 training. Even though the Smith settlement did not require training until 2014, we provided training in 2012 and 2013, and continuing thereafter.”

“In 2012, the department issued an announcement to all sworn officers and posted a video on positional asphyxiation. The announcement stated that the video ‘serves as a reminder that whenever a subject is restrained, there is a direct correlation between their ability to breathe and the position their body is in.’ The announcement required that the video be shown at all roll calls.”

“Additionally, in 2013 in-service MPD trained on the dangers of in-custody deaths. This training covered ‘compressional asphyxia’ as a cause of in-custody deaths.”

“MPD continues to stress training on the risks of in-custody deaths and the importance of putting restrained arrestees into the recovery position as soon as possible. There is simply no way that any competent officer in MPD would be unaware of the need to get an arrestee into a recovery position so that he or she can breathe freely.”

Mr. George Floyd’s tragic death was not due to a lack of training—the training was there. Chauvin knew what he was doing. I agree with Attorney General Ellison: what happened to Mr. Floyd was murder. Chauvin had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for over seven minutes, and for those last minutes he knew that Floyd was non-responsive. Mr. Floyd shouted out that he couldn’t breathe; bystanders shouted out that Mr. Floyd had stopped talking; then they shouted out that Mr. Floyd had become nonresponsive; and finally they shouted out that Mr. Floyd was dying. Further, one of the officers on the scene told Chauvin that Mr. Floyd should be put into a recovery position and he eventually told Chauvin that he could not find Mr. Floyd’s pulse. The officers knew what was happening—one intentionally caused it and the others failed to prevent it. This was murder—it wasn’t a lack of training. This is why I took swift action regarding the involved officers’ employment with MPD.” (Emphasis added.)

Kroll’s Statement[3]

In a June 23 interview on a  local television station, KARE-11, Kroll said Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s placing his knee near Floyd’s neck for nearly eight minutes “was sickening. It’s something that should never have occurred. No officer can condone that. Ourselves included.” The reporter then asked, “And is what Officer Chauvin did right?” Kroll responded, “Again, no. In my mind, no. I don’t think any officer would say that it’s right. Absolutely not.” Moreover, “We’ve got a pretty good picture of what Chauvin did. It’s easy to form judgment there and terminate, which we were able to make a quick decision that yes, we’re not going to represent [him with respect to the termination of] his employment.”

Kroll also said he would not be resigning as president of the union after consulting with union members and Chief Arradondo, all of whom suggested that Kroll stay in his position. Kroll added, “The chief and I have always had a very good working relationship. Better than any of his (predecessors). He’s an honest, truly nice man. I consider him a friend… I’ve socialized with him more than any other chief.”

Police Union Officials’ Statements[4]

Earlier that same day (June 23)  Kroll was interviewed by Gayle King on “CBS This Morning.” He said the lengthy “social-media” video of the Floyd killing that was taken by a 17-year-old bystander “does look and sound horrible,” but that he needs to see the officers’ body-worn camera footage, which the union is entitled to under its contract with the Department, before making a judgment on the criminal charges against the four officers. “We will be on the right side of history.”

Kroll also said that members of his union are being unfairly “scapegoated by political leaders in our city and our state, and they have shifted their incompetent leadership, failed leadership onto us and our membership, and it is simply unjust.”

Also interviewed by Gayle King were three other union officers. Its Vice President Sherral Schmidt, who is Kroll’s designated successor, said, “I’m not one that likes to Monday morning quarterback things. If I was there, I probably would have put him on his side in a recovery position once he went unconscious.”

Rich Walker, an African-American member of the union board, added, “”The narrative that is being pushed in the media is that white police officers are out on these streets just to kill black men, and this is absolutely farthest from the truth. Police officers are not out here just randomly hunting black people to kill them. That’s just terrible.”

In another segment on “CBS This Morning,” Brian Peters, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), which is paying for the legal defense of the four officers in the Floyd case, said Chauvin’s action during the Floyd arrest “betrayed the badge. And there’s no excuse for it.”

=================================

[1] Minneapolis Police Dep’t, Statement of Chief Medaria Arradondo (June 22, 2020); Bjorhus, Police chief: George Floyd’s death was a ‘murder,’ not about lack of training, StarTribune (June 23, 2020).

[2] On September 9,  2010, David Smith, who was mentally ill, was acting bizarrely at the downtown Minneapolis YMCA. Two Minneapolis policeman, responding to a 911 call, approached Smith and after he “grew fierce” stunned him with a Taser and forced him to the floor. The officers then held him face down while one placed a knee in his back and held him down for about four minutes, which made it impossible for Smith to breathe. After he had stopped breathing, one of the officers tried CPR before the paramedics arrived. Smith died in hospital about a week later. The Smith family subsequently filed a lawsuit for damages that resulted in a $3.075 million settlement. After the recent killing of George Floyd, the Smith family submitted a data practices act request to the Police Department for information on whether it had fulfilled its commitment to require all officers to obtain the previously mentioned training. (Furst, May 25: Minneapolis pays $3 million in police misconduct case, StarTribune (June 1, 2013); Bjorhus & Sawyer, Family of man who suffocated in police custody in 2010 asks whether police received training promised in settlement, StarTribune (June 10, 2020)..)

[3] Walsh, Minneapolis police union head says Chauvin firing is justified but rank and file officers being scapegoated, StarTribune (June 24, 2020); Thiede & Raguse, Police union president Bob Kroll says he will not resign, kare-11.com (June 23, 2020) (includes video of interview).

[4] Walsh, Kroll: Floyd video did ‘look and sound horrible,’ but says union being scapegoated by ‘failed’ leaders, StarTribune (June 23, 2020) (includes the video of the CBS interview).

 

Minnesota Legislature’s Special Session Fails To Pass Police Reform Measures    

Early Saturday morning, June 20, the Special Session of the Minnesota Legislature adjourned without passing any police reform measures. Nor did they pass a bonding bill for various state projects or a measure to provide federal COVID-19 aid for local governments.[1]

The Minnesota House had passed 20 police reform bills that would tighten the state’s deadly force laws, put the attorney general in charge of all cases where deadly force is used, ban “warrior-style” training for law enforcement and restore voting rights for felons on probation. The Senate, on the other hand, had passed a more modest police reform package that would have required reporting and intervention in deadly force cases and a state officer licensing board to ban chokeholds and neck restraints.

Early Saturday morning the Democrats in the House made a counteroffer that eliminated their proposals for having the attorney general investigate all police killings and restoring the right to vote to convicted felons. But The Senate Republicans apparently did not respond.

This result was disappointing, but not too surprising with the Senate controlled by the Republicans and the House by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party (the DFL).

======================================

[1] Bierschbach, Van Berkel & Condon, Minnesota Legislature adjourns without agreement on key issues, StarTribune (June 20, 2020); Bogel-Burroughs & Healy, Protesters Demanded Police Reform. Minnesota Lawmakers Left Without Passing a Bill, N.Y. Times (June 20, 2020); Bierschbach, Gov. Tim Walz implores Minnesota lawmakers to pass policing reforms while ‘the world is watching,’ StarTribune (June 18, 2020).