It’s Not Just One Bad Apple. Little Rock’s Police Department Is Rotten Throughout

Josh Hastings“I mean, on some level it ought to be self-evident. You don’t hire a police officer who attended a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan. It feels ridiculous to even say it, doesn’t it?”

Those words of wisdom from Little Rock, Ark., Police Lt. Johnny Gilbert Jr., come toward the end of a sprawling review of the city’s shocking failure to hold its officers accountable for bad behavior.

In a heavily researched piece published today at the Washington Post, Reason contributing editor Radley Balko details a police department that appears to be full of bad apples, rotten down to the core.

It may be self-evident to us or to Gilbert not to give a badge to somebody who attends Ku Klux Klan meetings. Nevertheless, Little Rock’s police did, in fact, hire a man by the name of Josh Hastings, despite Gilbert’s warnings not to. Over the course of five years, Hastings showed himself to be a terrible cop, racking up a lengthy discipline record, culminating in the fatal 2012 shooting of 15-year-old Bobby Moore in a confrontation with the teen and two friends who were breaking into cars. Hastings claimed at the time that the boy had commandeered the car and was driving toward him. Forensics evidence later showed that this simply was not true.

Hastings was fired from the force and held personally financially responsible for Moore’s death. But he evaded criminal responsibility, likely due to lackluster prosecution efforts that Balko fully documents, and the City of Little Rock has so far successfully avoided civil liability for having hired Hastings and kept him on despite his many screw-ups.

It is the city’s and police department’s institutional accountability failures, not Hastings’ behavior, that Balko’s blockbuster takes to task. Hastings’ story is but a glimpse of a bigger, more serious problem. Little Rock’s police force is a nasty mess:

Disturbing as Hastings’s disciplinary record may be, other officers in the department have even thicker personnel files. In fact, many of the very officers who trained and supervised Hastings have had lengthy histories of misconduct — including domestic violence, lying, and the use of excessive force.

A review of LRPD personnel records, emails and court cases dating back to Hastings’s hiring in March 2007 suggests a department plagued by nepotism, cronyism and racism — both blatant and subtle. Internal investigations of officer misconduct can be sloppy and incomplete, and are often haphazardly conducted by officers with clear conflicts of interest. There appears to be little supervision at any level, whether by sergeants over beat cops, the high command over supervising officers, or city and elected officials over the department’s leadership. When officers have been fired — and it takes a lot to get fired — they are often able to appeal and win back their jobs, either in court or through the city’s Civil Service Commission, usually with the help of the police union.

A former senior counsel for the Justice Department’s civil rights division looked over the records Balko provided and observed, “The lack of discipline and accountability is almost comical.”

It’s probably less comical to be on the other end of the Little Rock police department’s fists, batons, Tasers, or guns. One officer successfully appealed a suspension for beating up a man at a restaurant (he had a lengthy history of punching people in situations that did not require force) with the remarkable claim that he had not been properly trained in alternatives to using force. The Little Rock Service Commission accepted this argument and reinstated him, finding that the officer (who had been a cop for 25 years by that point) was “being punished by the same people responsible for not preparing him.”

More shocking still is the possibility that he might have been telling the truth. Balko documents a failure by the department to properly train police to use less-than-lethal tools like Tasers and even simple batons, resulting in more than one instance in the use of deadly force when it wasn’t necessary.

II cannot encourage you enough to go read Balko’s whole thing. It is painstaking documentation of a police department that essentially needs to be (metaphorically) burned to the ground and rebuilt from scratch.

As a side note, much of Balko’s reporting was made possible by gaining access to police disciplinary records in Little Rock. Too many states and cities make it difficult or impossible to gain access to such records, which further allows bad cops to act with impunity. Thankfully, California just recently passed a law that will end decades of state-ordered secrecy of law enforcement personnel records.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2AJqmQC
via IFTTT

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Let Immigrant Killer Featured in Trump Ad Go Free “For Reasons Unknown”

As Scott Shackford noted here, Donald Trump has released an unmistakably nativist, racist ad depicting Latino illegal immigrants as insane cop killers whom Democrats allow to freely roam the country at murderous will. Here’s the ad the president tweeted:

Shackford’s main point was that Luis Bracamontes, who now sits on death row in California, is in no way representative of illegal immigrants, much less legal ones. Immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, among other things. Using anomalous cases to make a policy point—and it’s a stretch to call Trump’s fact-free ravings on immigration “policy”—is never a good idea.

There’s another problem with this specific ad. Trump is using Bracamontes’ various crimes and delayed punishment to own his political opponents. At one point, the ad declares in all-caps hysteria, “DEMOCRATS LET HIM STAY.” At another, it asks, “WHO ELSE WOULD DEMOCRATS LET IN?,” stoking fears that the migrant caravan on its way from Central America and other people crossing the border with Mexico are barbarians shuffling toward the gate.

Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it: The Sacramento Bee finds that Bracamontes first entered the country in 1993, when Bill Clinton was in office. He was arrested, served time, and deported in 1997 (Bill Clinton and the Democrats were extremely hostile to illegal immigration, building parts of their 1996 campaign platform around the theme of militarizing the border).

In any case, Bracamonte showed up again in the Phoenix area, where a Republican guy named Sheriff Joe Arpaio was running the scene:

Records in Arizona show he was arrested on drug charges again in Phoenix in 1998, then released “for reasons unknown” by Arpaio’s office. Arpaio is a Republican.

Bracamontes was next arrested May 4, 2001, on marijuana charges in Maricopa County, and deported three days later. Republican George W. Bush was president at the time, and was president when Bracamontes slipped back into the United States a short time later.

The date of his re-entry is not clear, but records show Bracamontes was married in Maricopa County on Feb. 28, 2002, when Bush was president.

More here.

So that ad Trump is touting could just as easily say “REPUBLICANS LET HIM STAY” and “WHO ELSE DID SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO LET GO?” Last year, Arpaio was pardoned by the president after being found guilty of contempt of court for flouting a federal order to stop “the unconstitutional racial profiling and detainment of Latino residents.”

To return to Shackford’s original point: We shouldn’t be using outliers and extreme cases when discussing immigration, much less building policy around such things. Perhaps more than on any other issue, we need a different conversation about immigration, legal and otherwise. President Trump has shown time and again that he lacks any command even of basic facts and legal processes (his contention that he can end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right, by executive order is just the most-recent example of this ignorance). Virtually all the main arguments against immigration (legal or illegal) are predicated upon half-facts, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. That doesn’t mean the only defensible position is a libertarian version of open borders, in which people who want to live and work here peacefully and legally should generally be allowed to after a background check.

And here’s something for restrictionists to ponder: Whatever you think you’re accomplishing by demonizing immigrants, including the migrant caravan (that doesn’t include scores of ISIS operatives), you’re doing it wrong. Since Donald Trump became president in part by attacking Mexicans and others, a record-high number of Americans think immigration is a good thing. That includes 65 percent of self-identified Republicans. Nativism may win you a safe seat in Congress, but you’re losing the battle due to strident, over-the-top, and non-realistic rhetoric about the people who move here to have a better life.

In any case, we’d have much more productive discussions if we began talking honestly about the history and contemporary reality of immigration. That’s something the president and his defenders resolutely refuse to do.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2P3bYeG
via IFTTT

Control of the Senate Could Depend on These 10 Races

Control of the Senate is up for grabs on Tuesday, as Democrats look to reverse Republicans’ current 51-49 majority in the upper chamber of Congress.

But it won’t be easy. If you include Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Angus King (I–Maine), both of whom caucus with the Democrats, then 26 Senate Democrats are up for re-election, compared to just six Republicans. And 10 of those Democrats represent states President Donald Trump carried in 2016.

Democrats will likely be hard-pressed to flip the two seats they need in order to win a majority. According to FiveThirtyEight, Republicans have an 85 percent chance of staying in control.

Of course, we won’t know for sure until all the votes are counted. And whatever does happen will probably depend on the outcomes of these 10 races:

1. Florida: Sen. Bill Nelson (D) looks to fend off Gov. Rick Scott (R).

Both Nelson, who’s seeking his fourth term in the Senate, and Scott, a term-limited governor, are familiar faces to Florida voters. Nelson is a relatively moderate liberal who’s focusing on things like gun control and health care (specifically protections for patients on Medicare and Medicaid and those with pre-existing conditions). Scott, meanwhile, is touting himself as a problem-solver, citing his past experience as a successful businessman. Scott supports the Second Amendment, though in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, he signed a gun control bill that raised the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21, and empowered law enforcement to order those deemed a risk to themselves or others to surrender their guns.

Nelson and Scott’s faceoff has turned into one of the most hotly contested Senate races in the country. That’s not particularly surprising, as Florida is a state Trump won by just 1.2 percentage points two years ago. The candidates have combined to spend at least $33 million on their campaigns. About $27 million of that has come from Scott, including $20 million of his own money. But Nelson holds a slight edge, with a 1.9 percentage point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss-up.

2. Missouri: Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) is in the fight of her life against Josh Hawley (R).

McCaskill has tried to frame herself as a moderate, even going so far as to run a radio ad claiming she’s “not one of those crazy Democrats.” But it might not be working for the two-term senator. According to CBS News, 55 percent of Missouri voters say she’s about as liberal as her Democratic colleagues in Congress. Hawley, on the other hand, bills himself as a “constitutional conservative” who supports Trump’s agenda (which is particularly helpful in a state Trump won by more than 18 points).

Hawley was also one of 20 state attorneys general to file a lawsuit against Obamacare. McCaskill has seized on this, claiming Hawley doesn’t care about protecting people with pre-existing conditions. Hawley, for his part, says he does opposes all aspects of Obamacare except the pre-existing conditions provision.

If the polls are any indication, this race will come down to the wire. Hawley has a 2-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average, though a Fox News poll released Wednesday shows the race is essentially tied. This race, like the one in Florida, is rated as a toss-up by Cook.

3. Arizona: Reps. Martha McSally (R) and Kyrsten Sinema (D) face off in the battle of moderate vs. moderate.

McSally was the early GOP establishment favorite to replace incumbent Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.). She came through in the Republican primary, easily defeating former state Sen. Kelli Ward and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A former Air Force fighter pilot, McSally is running as a moderate, albeit one with an increasingly hardline stance on illegal immigration. Sinema, meanwhile, is also emphasizing border security, though she says she supports “permanent protection” for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program, also called Dreamers.

The other major issue in this race is health care. As The Ringer notes, Sinema played a role in drafting the Affordable Care Act, which is popular in Arizona. Though McSally voted to repeal parts of Obamacare last year, she’s talked about her support for a replacement, as well as protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

This race is another toss-up, according to Cook. The RealClearPolitics polling average has Sinema up by 0.7 points, though the latest Fox News poll says things are essentially tied. Sinema may get a boost after Green Party candidate Angela Green, who was reportedly polling at up to 6 percent support, dropped out and endorsed her. If Sinema does pull out the victory, it will be significant, as Arizonians haven’t elected a Democrat to the Senate in 30 years.

4. Tennessee: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) exchanges blows with former Gov. Phil Bredensen (D).

Things have gotten pretty heated between Blackburn, an outspoken conservative representative, and Bredensen, a somewhat moderate former two-term governor. Outside groups have spent millions of dollars on ads in the race to replace the retiring Sen. Bob Corker (R), many of them negative. As an example of how divisive this race has become, a protester at a Blackburn rally earlier this week yelled out “Marsha Blackburn is a white supremacist” during a moment of silence for the victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

Policy-wise, Blackburn mostly supports Trump’s agenda, though says she’s “not a fan” of his tariffs. Bredensen, meanwhile, touts his record of balancing the budget and cutting “out-of-control spending” during his time as governor. Notably, Bredensen said he would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite allegations of sexual misconduct against the judge, explaining the evidence “didn’t rise to the level” of being disqualifying.

Blackburn appears to have a clear edge just days shy of Nov. 6, with a 6.8-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Cook, however, still says the race is a toss-up. Even if Blackburn wins, it will likely be by a much smaller margin than Trump, who carried Tennessee by 26 points in 2016.

5. Montana: Tight battle between Sen. Jon Tester (D) and state Auditor Matt Rosendale (R) is further complicated by Libertarian Rick Breckenridge.

Various media reports have portrayed Tester, a two-term Democratic senator, as a down-to-earth politician who tries to focus more on people than on politics. That’s understandable, especially in a deep-red state that Trump won by 20 points two years ago. Policy-wise, Tester is something of a moderate—a pro-Second Amendment (at least in theory) Democrat who’s supported legislation that would deregulate some banks. Rosendale, meanwhile, is running as a pro-Trump conservative who would vote for the president’s federal judicial nominees (Tester voted no on Kavanaugh).

The race is a toss-up, according to Cook, though Tester has a 4.2-point edge in the RealClearPolitics polling average. The contest’s tight nature is tougher to predict due to the presence of Libertarian Rick Breckenridge. It’s unclear how much support Breckenridge has, but as Reason‘s Matt Welch reported last month, one poll gave him 4 percent. Contrary to at least one report, Breckenridge is not dropping out, instead telling Reason‘s Brian Doherty that he supports Rosendale on one particular issue: the shameful use of political “dark money” to send anonymous mailers. If Tester ends up winning, Republicans will still have the chance to scream “SPOILER!”

6. New Jersey: Sen. Bob Menendez (D) may hold on against Bob Hugin (R), but it wasn’t supposed to be this tough.

Pundits are divided on just how competitive the race is between Menendez, who’s looking to win his third full term in the Senate, and Hugin, a wealthy businessman. The RealClearPolitics polling average gives Menendez a 6.5-point lead, and FiveThirtyEight, which notes the incumbent hasn’t trailed in any of the polls, says he has an 87 percent chance of keeping his seat. According to Cook, though, the race is a toss-up.

Regardless, it’s surprising that Republicans have even a small shot at flipping a deep-blue state like New Jersey—the same state that went for Clinton by 14 points in 2016. No Republican has won a Senate seat in the state in 46 years. Then again, Hugin isn’t a normal Republican. He is not shy about his backing for legalized abortion and LGBT rights, and while he supports border security and opposes sanctuary cities, he does think Dreamers and other illegal immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship.

One thing that certainly hasn’t helped Menendez is his 2017 indictment and subsequent trial on federal corruption charges. Menendez has maintained his innocence, and though the case ended in a mistrial, the whole affair might very well have left a bad taste in voters’ mouths.

7. Texas: Sen. Ted Cruz (R) might not be as “cool” as Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D), but he’ll probably still win.

O’Rourke has mounted a surprisingly competitive campaign against Cruz, an outspoken conservative firebrand and 2016 presidential candidate. Reason‘s Jacob Sullum has taken note of Cruz’s unfortunate lurch to the right on criminal justice reform. O’Rourke, on the other hand, has become something of a media darling thanks to his support of football players who protest police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem.

As Reason‘s Zuri Davis reported, O’Rourke does hold some problematic views—his support for government intervention over free-market solutions, for instance. But the Texas GOP has chosen to instead attack O’Rourke for being in a band when he was younger, dyeing his hair, and knowing how to skateboard.

Like many Republicans across the country, Cruz has the support of Trump. The president is singing a much different tune than he did during the 2016 election cycle, replacing the nickname “Lyin’ Ted” with the moniker “Beautiful Ted.” And though Cook still rates the race as a toss-up, Cruz’s chances of winning a second term look decent. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Cruz is leading O’Rourke by 6.5 points.

8. Indiana: Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) has the edge over former state Rep. Mike Braun (R), but not by much.

Donnelly has a slight 1.2-point edge in the RealClearPolitics polling average for this race, which Cook rates a toss-up. The Democrat, who’s seeking a second Senate term, is trying to hold on in a state Trump won by 19 points in 2016. The fact that he’s a moderate helps: Donnelly is pro-life, pro-tax cuts (though he voted against the GOP-led tax overhaul, claiming it helped the wealthy at the middle class’s expense), pro-border wall, and anti-“radical left.” Braun, meanwhile, is very much a pro-Trump conservative these days, though he did vote as a Democrat until 2012. Even on tariffs, which have divided many conservatives, Braun supports the president, though he has said he wants to come up with a better long-term solution that wouldn’t hurt Indiana farmers.

But Donnelly and Braun aren’t the only candidates with significant support. Libertarian Lucy Brenton is averaging about 5.8 percent in the six independent polls that included her, according to Welch. The Democratic Party is even encouraging conservatives to vote for her. A Democratic campaign mailer sent to conservatives called her an “anti-tax conservative,” while claiming Braun “raised Indiana taxes 159 times.” The mailer didn’t even mention Donnelly. Brenton won’t win, but like Breckenridge, she’ll likely be labeled a “spoiler” if Donnelly comes away with the victory.

9. North Dakota: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D) is probably going to lose to her seat to Rep. Kevin Cramer (R).

Of all the Democratic senators up for re-election this year, Heitkamp is probably the most vulnerable. The one-term Democrat is trailing Cramer by a whopping 11.4 points in the RealClearPolitics polling average. The race leans Republican, according to Cook. So what went wrong for Heitkamp?

It was always going to be tough for her to win re-election, particularly in a state Trump won by nearly 36 points. Heitkamp is a moderate who supports immigration law enforcement. But she did vote against Kavanaugh, and she doesn’t think Trump tariffs are helping farmers in her state. Her campaign was also responsible for one of the worst ads this election cycle, in which survivors of sexual assault were outed without their consent. Kramer, meanwhile, agrees with Trump on most issues (Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement being one notable exception). Ultimately, Heitkamp probably just won’t be able to overcome a very conservative candidate running in a deep-red state.

10. Nevada: For Democrats to take back the Senate, Rep. Jacky Rosen (D) probably needs to unseat Sen. Dean Heller (R).

Like Heitkamp, Heller is the member of his party most likely to lose his Senate seat. Unlike Heitkamp, Heller actually has a 2-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average. The race is still a toss-up, according to Cook, and a CNN poll released Wednesday showed Rosen with a 3-point edge.

Heller, who’s looking to win a second full term in the Senate, wasn’t always the biggest supporter of Trump, though the threat of a primary fight against a challenger from the right changed that. Rosen, meanwhile, has the support of high-profile Democrats like former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden, and the democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Rosen has particularly focused on health care, which she believes “is a right, not a privilege,” and she’s criticized Heller for voting for a partial repeal of Obamacare last year.

As Heller is the only Republican running for re-election in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016, this is a seat Democrats really need to win.

Honorable mention: New Mexico is the only state with a legitimate three-party race, though Sen. Martin Heinrich (D) is likely to prevail over Mick Rich (R) and Gary Johnson (L).

The results out of New Mexico probably won’t be terribly surprising, as Heinrich should easily defeat Rich and Johnson. This race is notable, though, in that Johnson—the state’s former governor—will probably garner more votes Tuesday than any other Libertarian in the country.

Trump lost New Mexico by more than 8 points in 2016, and Cook rates the Senate race as “solid” for the Democrats. It’s conceivable that if Rich wasn’t a factor, Johnson would have a shot at winning, as University of New Mexico political science professor Gabe Sanchez recently told KRQE. But Rich didn’t drop out after Johnson announced his candidacy, so the two challengers are likely to split the vote.

The RealClearPolitics polling average shows Heinrich with 49 percent support, Rich with 31.7 percent, and Johnson with 13 percent.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2F1a4GZ
via IFTTT

The San Diego Police Department Doesn’t Know How Many Civilians Have Accused Officers of Sexual Misconduct

|||MIKE BLAKE/REUTERS/NewscomAn unusually high number of sexual misconduct incidents have placed an unwanted spotlight on San Diego County’s law enforcement. San Diego’s CBS News 8 launched an investigation into the prevalence of these incidents, only to find that the truth may be difficult to uncover.

A report from News 8 looked into the number of civilian complaints of sexual misconduct against officers. After filing requests under the California Public Records Act to find the number of civilian complaints made against both the San Diego Police Department and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department since 2008. The police department responded by saying that it did not track sexual misconduct complaints, because the California Department of Justice does not require it to.

A records request denial letter from the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, meanwhile, explained that it also did not keep track of sexual misconduct complaints. The answer could be obtained, however, if a person read through every single civilian complaint made in the last 10 years.

Though the departments have failed to track complaints, Philip Stinson, an associate professor at Bowling Green State University, told News 8 that the number of public arrests for officer sexual misconduct indicates that there are likely more incidents than in other, similar-sized counties. Since 2005, at least five San Diego police officers and four deputies have been arrested for sexual misconduct.

Earlier this week, San Diego agreed to pay 17 strippers $1.5 million in damages after police detained them, conducted questionable inspections, and forced them to take pictures, including documenting their tattoos like they would gang members. The women also accused the officers of making demeaning comments and threatening arrest if they tried to leave. The city attempted to have the case dismissed before the settlement was reached.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OfDxw5
via IFTTT

Happy 50th Birthday to Us: Reason Roundup

Not fade away… If this magazine were a person, it would now be eligible to join the AARP (not that it would, obviously). This week we celebrate “50 Years of Free Minds and Free Markets” with a spate of Los Angeles events and the release of our December 2018 issue. How did we get here?

Reason was founded in 1968 by Boston University student Lanny Friedlander. (Read more about Reason‘s origin story here.) Here’s an excerpt from Friedlander’s first editor’s note:

When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, student power, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions… Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coherence, not contradictions. This is our promise: This is the reason for REASON.

Then an “irregularly published mimeographed ‘zine,” it wasn’t long before Reason was purchased by Robert Poole, Manny Klausner, and Tibor Michan, and professionalized. In 1978, they started the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit now behind Reason magazine.

When Katherine Mangu-Ward took over as editor-in-chief in 2016, she heard a lot about how Reason “finally” had a female lead. But Reason had a woman editor-in-chief as early as 1984, when Marty Zupan took over. Zupan was succeeded by Virginia Postrel in 1989, who held the position until Nick Gillespie took the reins in 2000, followed by Matt Welch in 2008.

These different periods of Reason history saw some major aesthetic shifts as well as the striking of different tones—from mostly manifesto- and policy-focused to a more balanced blend of policy, politics, polemics, and pop culture; from a publication that aimed to bring libertarians together, to one that also strives to spread libertarian ideals and “logic, not legends” to the broader world.

What does it mean, these days, to be a libertarian and to spread libertarianism? In the latest issue, libertarian icons, from Cato Institute president David Boaz to former ACLU head Nadine Strossen, give their answers. You’ll also find Postrel looking back on predictions from Reason’s 25th birthday to see how they panned out, Mangu-Ward on “zombie statistics”—those bad bits of baseless received wisdom that, with any luck, Reason will still be debunking decades from now—and Damon Root on the five worst legal decisions of the past five decades. (See the whole December issue’s lineup here.)

But Reason‘s core passions since 1968—free speech, free trade, less militarism, more personal freedom—have been steady, and often quite ahead of the time. As Jacob Sullum points out, Reason supported things like the decriminalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage decades before most Republicans or Democrats did.

Reason carried an editorial in 1975 supporting gay marriage. Even more impressively, the following year the Libertarian Party endorsed the idea. As for marijuana legalization, Reason has been on that case since at least 1969.

In the past few years, “dramatic reversals of long-established public opinion” on both issues “broke through at the same moment”—a good reminder that while being libertarian can seem like a Sisyphean battle against authoritarians on the left and right, a lot of significant and positive changes have happened. And while it can seem like major public opinion and policy changes like these swelled up almost overnight, the reality is that pioneers of liberty have been patiently pushing their fellow Americans along for decades.

Here’s to 50 more years of placing liberty for all above all else.

FREE MINDS

Good news on Title IX trials. New guidelines from Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss are slated to change the way schools handle sexual assault and misconduct cases under Title IX. “Under the revised Title IX guidelines, universities must afford accused students the right to question their accuser,” reports National Review, “though the questions can be communicated through a neutral third party and the two parties never have to face each other in the same room.”

FREE MARKETS

On the fiscal impact of ballot initiatives:

QUICK HITS

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2yVqawn
via IFTTT

California’s Insurance Commissioner Race Is the Most Important Election You’ve Never Heard About: New at Reason

Some of the most heated races in the November election are for offices that most Californians know little about. Ask an average voter about the Orwellian-sounding Bureau of Equalization (BOE), and they’ll look at you with an eyes-glazed-over stare reminiscent of a cat’s gaze after you ask whether it prefers tuna or turkey giblets. Likewise, how many voters can tell you why the race for insurance commissioner is so important?

The BOE races don’t really matter. The tax board used to be fairly important, but the Legislature recently stripped it of most of its powers. Those elections mainly are about who gets a sinecure while they contemplate other offices. But the election of insurance “czar,” as some rightly call it given the vast powers held by the head honcho at the Department of Insurance, holds real significance given its impact on insurance markets and the cost of your premiums.

This convoluted system goes back to 1988, when voters approved Proposition 103. As the Department of Insurance explains, the initiative capped rates and “requires the ‘prior approval’ of California’s Department of Insurance before insurance companies can implement property and casualty insurance rates. Prior to Proposition 103, automobile, property and casualty insurance rates were set by insurance companies without approval by the insurance commissioner.”

In our market economy, companies offer products at different prices and the buyer chooses. Prices are kept in line thanks to competition. There’s a legitimate role for regulation, mainly to make sure the businesses live up to their promises. That traditionally is the main role of state insurance commissions. They need to assure that insurance companies have the financial resources to pay out the coverages in the event of disaster. But voters instead implemented a government-controlled rate system.

This year, the choice of commissioner is fascinating. Both candidates are highly accomplished, which offers a clue that this is not a placeholder job, writes Steven Greenhut.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2yLbkZ4
via IFTTT

Zombie Statistics: New at Reason

“You’re about to be untricked,” boasted the opening line of a groundbreaking 1981 Reason investigation about high-profile chemical leaks in upstate New York. In the early ’80s, Love Canal had already become synonymous with corporate willingness to destroy the environment and human health in the name of profit. But careful reporting revealed the anti-corporate narrative was wrong; the primary malefactor wasn’t the greedy businessmen at Hooker Chemical but the Niagara Falls Board of Education, which developed a plot of land despite many warnings from Hooker about the presence of dangerous chemicals. Unfortunately, Reason‘s story did little to change the anti-market tenor of the environmental reforms that followed, writes Katherine Mangu-Ward.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2F8iVq2
via IFTTT

The Next Big Fight Over Organized Labor May Already Be Here: New at Reason

June’s Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) freed public sector workers from being required to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. It was kind of a big deal, and a single sentence in Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion hints at what might be the next major legal fight over American unionism, writes Eric Boehm in the latest issue of Reason.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2QeGIWz
via IFTTT

Kurt Loder Reviews Bohemian Rhapsody: New at Reason

Bohemian Rhapsody—a movie that recounts the life of the late Queen singer Freddie Mercury, who’s played by Rami Malek—is pretty wonderful in several ways, but it’s also a museum of ancient biopic clichés. For example, in an early scene we see the young Freddie-to-be, an immigrant kid from Zanzibar named Farrokh Bulsara, at his parents’ London home, where he lives. You’ve met these parents before. Dad (Ace Bhatti) is an old-world kind of guy who disapproves of this rock & roll music his son is so into, and the late-night life it engenders. However, Freddie’s mom (Meneka Das) is an optimist. When her young nightcrawler says he’s going “out with friends” again, she asks, hopefully, “A girl?” “Maaahhm,” he whines, writes Kurt Loder.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2RuOcVx
via IFTTT