Reports about an imminent resignation by Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton are rumbling again, and this time around, they seem to have more credence than before.
But with Mayor Herenton, we’ve learned to believe it when we see it, but if he steps aside, it will have far-reaching ramifications – for not just who follows him as city mayor but who gets elected county mayor.
His political friends report that the lack of passion in City Hall is quickly being replaced with the energy triggered by a potential race for U.S. Congress against two-term incumbent Steve Cohen.
The Contest
Despite the breathless coverage by the media, we are a long way from having any idea how that race is likely to shake out. The poll headlined by Channel 5 showing Rep. Cohen trouncing Mayor Herenton was specious and has little connection with the reality of the situation.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mayor Herenton still has a strong base, and the race for Congress between two political veterans – one who’s a master of the sound bite and another whose mastery runs more to biting when least expected – is likely to be a street fight to the death.
At this point, the main questions are how early will the mayor play the race card – or if he will leave it to be played by others – and how early the congressman will bedevil him with his patented barbs designed to either draw laughs or blood.
Swimming Upstream
Congressman Cohen already expects to swim against a strong political current in favor of returning an African-American to the congressional seat in a majority African-American district. In turn, Mayor Herenton should expect to confront an opponent who raises more money than he does and can point to African-American colleagues in Congress who have lauded his work.
But this election is still more than a year away – a lifetime in politics – and a great deal can change, notably Mayor Herenton’s legal status as the federal investigation continues.
More current are the dominoes that will fall if Mayor Herenton steps down within weeks to concentrate on his race for Congress and a new business arrangement with one of his sons.
Options And Plenty Of Them
But we want to talk about mayors’ elections, so consider what happens if the mayor resigns. If Mayor Herenton steps down next month or August, his successor will be chosen in a special election in October or November respectively. Immediately upon the mayor leaving office, Memphis City Council Chairman Myron Lowery would be appointed as interim mayor, and the special election scheduled within 90 days.
At this point, he’s planning to run for mayor, and the prospects of yard signs, “Keep Lowery as Mayor,” are pretty appealing, as well as the ability to leverage the city’s most important bully pulpit as he campaigned.
That said, it’s obvious that a special mayor’s election in such short order favors the person with the county’s highest approval ratings and the deepest campaign pockets – A C Wharton. He would be formidable in the best of circumstances, but in an election called with such a short fuse, it would take lightning striking for him to lose.
One Scenario
We know there is the speculation that the mayor’s race will attract a cavalry of candidates, and as the electorate is divided up like a pie with too many people at the table, Mayor Wharton’s slice will shrink, allowing former Council member Carol Chumney to ease into office. All things are possible in politics but it’s not a prediction to which we subscribe for a variety of reasons, including his ability to attract both black and white votes and that the other candidates are largely fighting for the same votes.
It’s our sense that anyone trying to undercut Mayor Wharton will need to raise at least 50% more than his campaign budget and with only 90 days to do it, the points go to the candidate with a proven ability to raise big money and with an existing war chest.
Assume we’re right: Mayor Herenton resigns and Mayor Wharton is elected city mayor in October. His victory immediately opens up the county mayor’s seat, and the chairman of the Shelby County Board of Commissioners fills in temporarily.
County Options
At this point, the next chair of the legislative body – whose term begins Sept. 1 - is expected to be Joyce Avery, now chairman pro tempore. She would serve for 45 days, upon which time an interim mayor would be elected by the board of commissioners. Commissioner Sidney Chism is interested in running for the next chairman pro tempore and using it as a springboard for the appointment as interim mayor.
All in all, a Herenton exit now is a near miss for the current chair of the board of commissioners, Deidre Malone, a leading candidate for county mayor. Filling in as the 45-day mayor with hopes to create some momentum if appointed interim mayor, her campaign would have been jump started with a head start for the mayor’s race.
It would probably have been tough since Commissioner Chism is backing former state legislator and Bartlett banker Harold Byrd, and he’d try to block her appointment. (On the other hand, it’s just as likely that she’ll work hard to block him being named to the same position.)
Post-Republican Era
Whoever is elected as interim mayor by the board of commissioners, that person will serve until September 1, 2010, when the winner in the county general election takes office as Shelby County’s fifth mayor.
Interestingly, on that same August 5, 2010, ballot will be the election that will be a magnet for large Democratic turnout – the Cohen-Herenton Congressional battle. The returns 14 months from now will ratify the proposition that if we are not in fact in a post-racial world, our community is indeed in a post-Republican world.
It could even make for a difficult race for two-term sheriff Mark Luttrell, and it makes Attorney General Bill Gibbons’ campaign as the Republican candidate for governor an even greater long shot.
And as has been the case for 16 years, everything seems to start with Mayor Herenton.
Showing posts with label Bill Gibbons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Gibbons. Show all posts
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Local Decisions Are Best Made Locally
There’s such a fine line in politics between populism and pandering.
In his political career, Shelby County’s top prosecutor Bill Gibbons has had his share of the latter and his attempts at the former have generally seemed forced and artificial.
We were reminded of that again this week with more evidence of an insatiable appetite for mandatory sentencing. Apparently, in time, we can eliminate all judges and put a calculator on the bench to dispense justice as mere calculations.
Prosecutorial Leadership
It’s too bad, because in a number of cities, prosecutors are leading campaigns to educate the public about the root causes of crime and to mobilize support for programs to attack them. Also, in other places, there is a growing realization that the growing “corrections-industrial complex” is aimed at keeping more and more people in prison because they in essence are the profit centers for politically-connected vendors such as Corrections Corporation of America.
It is of course politically expedient to propose mandatory sentencing, so voters rarely hear the other side of the issue. For that reason, we admired Cardell Orrin, local political reformer and strategist, for asking the right questions about what is most successful in finding the proper balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
In a city plagued by crime like ours, it’s hard to ask such questions, but they nevertheless are the ones that deserve serious consideration. The U.S. is already the West’s leading prisoner nation, and if Memphis is intent on becoming the leading prisoner city, we cannot in time support the growing costs of such a system.
State Mandates
Meanwhile, this week, Attorney General Gibbons – a member of a party that espouses less government intrusion in local affairs and in the value of the best government being closest to the people – said that he would support state legislation to win a police residency argument that he couldn’t win locally.
This act of political overkill was put forth by yet another Republican, Tennessee Rep. Brian Kelsey, whose naivete is only matched by his self-righteous rigidity, and whose obsessive headline-hunting led him to proposal a state bill to outlaw the ability of cities to make their own decisions about the residency requirements of their police force.
It’s always fascinating to watch these hide-bound conservatives rail against liberals who try to dictate their agenda through government regulations, but when given a chance, can’t seem to resist the chance to do exactly what they criticize.
State Interference
After all, it seems better and more responsive government for such decision to be made by each city based on its own needs and policies. While we too advocated for the relaxing of the police residency requirements, we nonetheless abhor the interference of state government into a decision that is best left to local officials.
The Memphis City Council majority that had won the vote on policy residency should be commended for their willingness to reopen the issue and pursue a compromise on the politically divisive issue. After all, they had the votes and didn’t have to do anything, but in the end, cooler heads prevailed on both sides of this issue and the compromise allows for applicants to come from within 20 miles of Memphis.
And yet, the attorney general was unwilling to let go of the issue regardless of the divisiveness. He told the Memphis Flyer’s Jackson Baker that “it is possible” to pass a state law that would dictate and force Memphis and every other local government in Tennessee to eliminate any residency requirements that they had passed.
Talking The Walk
While he may think that this position will play well in Memphis, it’s less clear about whether cities across Tennessee believe that edicts from state government should trump local self-determination.
It’s uncertain about the ultimate political impact of Mr. Gibbons’ position. It is certain, however, that this will be a long campaign for governor.
In his political career, Shelby County’s top prosecutor Bill Gibbons has had his share of the latter and his attempts at the former have generally seemed forced and artificial.
We were reminded of that again this week with more evidence of an insatiable appetite for mandatory sentencing. Apparently, in time, we can eliminate all judges and put a calculator on the bench to dispense justice as mere calculations.
Prosecutorial Leadership
It’s too bad, because in a number of cities, prosecutors are leading campaigns to educate the public about the root causes of crime and to mobilize support for programs to attack them. Also, in other places, there is a growing realization that the growing “corrections-industrial complex” is aimed at keeping more and more people in prison because they in essence are the profit centers for politically-connected vendors such as Corrections Corporation of America.
It is of course politically expedient to propose mandatory sentencing, so voters rarely hear the other side of the issue. For that reason, we admired Cardell Orrin, local political reformer and strategist, for asking the right questions about what is most successful in finding the proper balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
In a city plagued by crime like ours, it’s hard to ask such questions, but they nevertheless are the ones that deserve serious consideration. The U.S. is already the West’s leading prisoner nation, and if Memphis is intent on becoming the leading prisoner city, we cannot in time support the growing costs of such a system.
State Mandates
Meanwhile, this week, Attorney General Gibbons – a member of a party that espouses less government intrusion in local affairs and in the value of the best government being closest to the people – said that he would support state legislation to win a police residency argument that he couldn’t win locally.
This act of political overkill was put forth by yet another Republican, Tennessee Rep. Brian Kelsey, whose naivete is only matched by his self-righteous rigidity, and whose obsessive headline-hunting led him to proposal a state bill to outlaw the ability of cities to make their own decisions about the residency requirements of their police force.
It’s always fascinating to watch these hide-bound conservatives rail against liberals who try to dictate their agenda through government regulations, but when given a chance, can’t seem to resist the chance to do exactly what they criticize.
State Interference
After all, it seems better and more responsive government for such decision to be made by each city based on its own needs and policies. While we too advocated for the relaxing of the police residency requirements, we nonetheless abhor the interference of state government into a decision that is best left to local officials.
The Memphis City Council majority that had won the vote on policy residency should be commended for their willingness to reopen the issue and pursue a compromise on the politically divisive issue. After all, they had the votes and didn’t have to do anything, but in the end, cooler heads prevailed on both sides of this issue and the compromise allows for applicants to come from within 20 miles of Memphis.
And yet, the attorney general was unwilling to let go of the issue regardless of the divisiveness. He told the Memphis Flyer’s Jackson Baker that “it is possible” to pass a state law that would dictate and force Memphis and every other local government in Tennessee to eliminate any residency requirements that they had passed.
Talking The Walk
While he may think that this position will play well in Memphis, it’s less clear about whether cities across Tennessee believe that edicts from state government should trump local self-determination.
It’s uncertain about the ultimate political impact of Mr. Gibbons’ position. It is certain, however, that this will be a long campaign for governor.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bail Constitutional Amendment Guilty Of Over-reaching
You can count us among those civil liberties advocates who were expected to oppose the Tennessee Constitutional amendment being pushed by a cadre of elected officials that include Shelby County Mayor AC Wharton, Attorney General Bill Gibbons, Sheriff Mark Luttrell, Shelby County Commissioner Steve Mulroy and Shelby County Commissioners Chair Deidre Malone.
Apparently, the political upside that comes from looking tough on crime trumps the Tennessee Constitutional. These elected officials have teamed up to push an amendment to the Constitution that would allow judges to deny bail. It feels an awfully lot like taking a nuclear warhead to kill a gnat, because Constitutional amendments should be reserved for the rarest of issues, and this one feels largely feels unnecessary.
Already, it would seem that in Shelby County courts, high bails are tantamount to denying bail for defendants in the first place, because by and large the people marching before a judge in our criminal courts have no capacity to pay hefty bails.
Unlighting The Ideals
That this push was publicized a few days after U.S. President Barack Obama said in his inaugural speech: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.”
It seems that the push for the amendment to Tennessee Constitution seems all too rooted in fear and expediency, the same kind that our new president courageously confronts by underscoring the basic beliefs of our justice system with the announced closing of Guantanamo and secret prisons. Just as we try to get our balance following eight years of the Bush Administration’s thumbing its nose at well-accepted legal principles, our local politicians embark on a crusade whose political upsides seem too irresistible.
After all, who really cares if people charged with crimes are kept in jail until their cases are heard? Who really cares if we erode the purpose of bail to use the worst people among us for political benefit?
Paying Down
For one thing, we should care as taxpayers, but we should also care because there is such a temptation these days at the federal and local level to address safety issues by throwing more people in jail and stretching out sentences, even if it means that we have to wink at or change Constitutional guarantees and even it means that we do it while research shows that it has little effect.
It’s not too surprising that Attorney General Gibbons is in favor of this change in the Constitutional rights of Tennesseeans. He needs something to put some life into his bid for governor, and that impulse is destined to amplify now that he has announced his interest in entering the race for governor. In a race where he has as little chance for success as this one, it seems a given that he will pound his law and order themes as he criss-crosses Tennessee. In supporting the Constitutional amendment, he decried the criminal justice system’s “revolving door,” saying some defendants are released on bail the same day they are arrested.
We presume that he’d prefer for county taxpayers to foot the bill to pay for an insatiable appetite for new laws that keep people in jail longer (even though much research suggests that criminal activity is relatively age specific). For example, there’s no denying that headline-grabbing public calls for longer sentences for gun crimes pay off at the ballot box, but they also pay off in the bills that taxpayers have to pay to keep people in prison into their senior years long after they have passed the ages when they are highly unlikely to commit crimes.
Prophetic Words
It was about 25 years ago that Shelby County’s second mayor, Bill Morris, a former sheriff, rightly concluded that it was pure insanity for local government to think it could “build its way out of the crime problem” with more cells in bigger prisons when it makes more sense in economic and human terms to address the roots of crime. As he pointed out then, we could pay for all state prisoners to be sent to Ivy League universities more cheaply than paying for their yearly upkeep at state expense.
And yet, here we are, decades later, still wrestling with the symptoms rather than the problem itself. Still, today, it is more politically palatable to advocate policies that cost taxpayers $30,000 a year per prisoner than to crusade for interventions that could cost 80% less and open up options that could keep adolescents from lives of crime.
As former U.S. Attorney Veronica Coleman rightly points out, there is unquestionably different treatment of African-American juveniles in the justice system. The statistics are too compelling and the anecdotal evidence too strong to disagree with her conclusion that institutional racism is alive and well in the juvenile justice system, and that somehow, we have to invest money to move youths from paths to Juvenile Court and instead to the mainstream of our city.
Forgetting What Bail Is About
Here’s the thing about bail. It’s intended to guarantee the appearance of the defendant for court hearings and trial. That’s it. It’s not about punishment and it’s not punitive. It’s not intended to make money for the state and it shouldn’t be used by prosecutors as leverage to encourage defendants to cop a plea.
We abhor the smirk on Bernie Madoff’s face as much as anyone as he shuffles back and forth to court after bilking $50 billion out of good people in his megalomaniacal Ponzi scheme. Victims called for him to be locked up without bail, but his bail is working. He’s showing up in court, and just because we’re mad about what he’s done, bail still isn’t supposed to be punishment, because when it is set, the defendant is still is cloaked with the presumption of innocence.
We’ve heard public defenders – some who were working at the time for the future Shelby County Mayor when he was chief public defender Wharton -- and defense attorneys say this for years, and despite the theatrical portrayals of the justice system on television, it is nonetheless true. Bail is only intended to make sure that the defendant shows up for trial. Period. End of sentence.
Right Signal
In a letter written by Mayor Wharton, he said: “It sends the wrong signal to our neighborhoods when they see individuals accused of grave and serious crimes continuing to walk the streets…while the judicial process proceeds at a slow pace.” He is certainly right that the judicial process proceeds at a slow pace, and all these elected officials ought to band together to fix that. There is no greater deterrent to crime than quick and certain justice.
To us, the wrong signal is amending the Constitution of our state for some transitory benefit that does nothing to strike at the seedbeds for crime in the first place. As President Obama said during his campaign for the presidency, when we give up freedoms out of fear, it only means that the terrorists and the criminals have won.
They seem close to winning in Tennessee.
Apparently, the political upside that comes from looking tough on crime trumps the Tennessee Constitutional. These elected officials have teamed up to push an amendment to the Constitution that would allow judges to deny bail. It feels an awfully lot like taking a nuclear warhead to kill a gnat, because Constitutional amendments should be reserved for the rarest of issues, and this one feels largely feels unnecessary.
Already, it would seem that in Shelby County courts, high bails are tantamount to denying bail for defendants in the first place, because by and large the people marching before a judge in our criminal courts have no capacity to pay hefty bails.
Unlighting The Ideals
That this push was publicized a few days after U.S. President Barack Obama said in his inaugural speech: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.”
It seems that the push for the amendment to Tennessee Constitution seems all too rooted in fear and expediency, the same kind that our new president courageously confronts by underscoring the basic beliefs of our justice system with the announced closing of Guantanamo and secret prisons. Just as we try to get our balance following eight years of the Bush Administration’s thumbing its nose at well-accepted legal principles, our local politicians embark on a crusade whose political upsides seem too irresistible.
After all, who really cares if people charged with crimes are kept in jail until their cases are heard? Who really cares if we erode the purpose of bail to use the worst people among us for political benefit?
Paying Down
For one thing, we should care as taxpayers, but we should also care because there is such a temptation these days at the federal and local level to address safety issues by throwing more people in jail and stretching out sentences, even if it means that we have to wink at or change Constitutional guarantees and even it means that we do it while research shows that it has little effect.
It’s not too surprising that Attorney General Gibbons is in favor of this change in the Constitutional rights of Tennesseeans. He needs something to put some life into his bid for governor, and that impulse is destined to amplify now that he has announced his interest in entering the race for governor. In a race where he has as little chance for success as this one, it seems a given that he will pound his law and order themes as he criss-crosses Tennessee. In supporting the Constitutional amendment, he decried the criminal justice system’s “revolving door,” saying some defendants are released on bail the same day they are arrested.
We presume that he’d prefer for county taxpayers to foot the bill to pay for an insatiable appetite for new laws that keep people in jail longer (even though much research suggests that criminal activity is relatively age specific). For example, there’s no denying that headline-grabbing public calls for longer sentences for gun crimes pay off at the ballot box, but they also pay off in the bills that taxpayers have to pay to keep people in prison into their senior years long after they have passed the ages when they are highly unlikely to commit crimes.
Prophetic Words
It was about 25 years ago that Shelby County’s second mayor, Bill Morris, a former sheriff, rightly concluded that it was pure insanity for local government to think it could “build its way out of the crime problem” with more cells in bigger prisons when it makes more sense in economic and human terms to address the roots of crime. As he pointed out then, we could pay for all state prisoners to be sent to Ivy League universities more cheaply than paying for their yearly upkeep at state expense.
And yet, here we are, decades later, still wrestling with the symptoms rather than the problem itself. Still, today, it is more politically palatable to advocate policies that cost taxpayers $30,000 a year per prisoner than to crusade for interventions that could cost 80% less and open up options that could keep adolescents from lives of crime.
As former U.S. Attorney Veronica Coleman rightly points out, there is unquestionably different treatment of African-American juveniles in the justice system. The statistics are too compelling and the anecdotal evidence too strong to disagree with her conclusion that institutional racism is alive and well in the juvenile justice system, and that somehow, we have to invest money to move youths from paths to Juvenile Court and instead to the mainstream of our city.
Forgetting What Bail Is About
Here’s the thing about bail. It’s intended to guarantee the appearance of the defendant for court hearings and trial. That’s it. It’s not about punishment and it’s not punitive. It’s not intended to make money for the state and it shouldn’t be used by prosecutors as leverage to encourage defendants to cop a plea.
We abhor the smirk on Bernie Madoff’s face as much as anyone as he shuffles back and forth to court after bilking $50 billion out of good people in his megalomaniacal Ponzi scheme. Victims called for him to be locked up without bail, but his bail is working. He’s showing up in court, and just because we’re mad about what he’s done, bail still isn’t supposed to be punishment, because when it is set, the defendant is still is cloaked with the presumption of innocence.
We’ve heard public defenders – some who were working at the time for the future Shelby County Mayor when he was chief public defender Wharton -- and defense attorneys say this for years, and despite the theatrical portrayals of the justice system on television, it is nonetheless true. Bail is only intended to make sure that the defendant shows up for trial. Period. End of sentence.
Right Signal
In a letter written by Mayor Wharton, he said: “It sends the wrong signal to our neighborhoods when they see individuals accused of grave and serious crimes continuing to walk the streets…while the judicial process proceeds at a slow pace.” He is certainly right that the judicial process proceeds at a slow pace, and all these elected officials ought to band together to fix that. There is no greater deterrent to crime than quick and certain justice.
To us, the wrong signal is amending the Constitution of our state for some transitory benefit that does nothing to strike at the seedbeds for crime in the first place. As President Obama said during his campaign for the presidency, when we give up freedoms out of fear, it only means that the terrorists and the criminals have won.
They seem close to winning in Tennessee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
