Crime rates are falling, and criminal justice reform remains urgent and popular. But led by Elon Musk, a new generation of Republican megadonors are spending millions to kill it.
Rich dudes in Dallas got three propositions on the Nov. general election ballot, and two won. The most dangerous one was not aimed at police reform, but rather an attempt to get the City to hire more police officers. Nine hundred more, to be exact, and the city is required to devote 50% of new city revenue to police and fire pensions. That's about a 25% increase in the number of officers Dallas already has.
Just about every credible person in city government, and even the Dallas Police Association (union) says that's impossible. As former mayor, Mike Rawlings says; “Because you want to do it right, you want to make sure that the right ones [get] hired, you want to make sure they’re trained appropriately. The way that proposition is written, it’s going to be very, very dangerous to hire all those officers at once.”
Here's what the DPA spokesperson said: “Dallas Police Association, which represents thousands of Dallas police officers, is strongly opposed to all three of these amendments — which were contrived by a small group of people who do not live in Dallas, with no open dialogue, no experience on the subject matter and no communications with police association leaders that would be impacted by these amendments." That's pretty strong stuff from a police union!
If our broligarch overlords take over, it's possible we'll look back on Trump as not that bad.
Radley, I became a paid subscriber just to comment on this column.
My background: I've lived in Oakland since 1981, so I've seen some significant crime waves. The '80s and '90s were particularly bloody years, many of which featured triple-digit homicide totals. Since then, things have improved considerably, but this remains a poor city with extreme income inequality.
A quick correction: you should correct the spelling throughout the column of Mayor Sheng Thao's name!
Now on to the substance: it's important to note that the vote counts you cite throughout are not final. Alameda County still has a substantial (100,000 plus) number of ballots to count. Yes, we're slow, but this is in part because California counts all ballots received through the Tuesday following Election Day, as long as they were mailed on or before November 5. In addition, it is not clear to me yet by what margin Oakland voters will have rejected Price. Her 2022 victory was driven by Oakland voters (we're the largest city in the county), and I suspect her 2024 recall will be driven largely by non-Oakland votes. That doesn't mean that she will WIN in Oakland...just that this city was her base, and that I suspect she will lose here by a much smaller margin than she loses in the rest of the county.
Both recalls were funded (as you note) by tech and real estate interests. There is NO WAY either recall would have got off the ground without that money. The recall process has been permanently tainted by Citizens United. Rich people have figured out a way to unseat politicians they don't like. This started with Boudin; we are already seeing hints that Contra Costa DA Diana Becton will be next on their hit list.
Pamela Price and Sheng Thao weren't perfect, of course, but anti-democratic forces wouldn't even allow them to complete their terms. It's a dangerous time.
Yes, this mistake happens every election cycle. The Registrar of Voters' website indicates 100% of precincts have been counted, but this only reflects a)in person ballots and b)mail-in ballots received several days prior to Election Day. It excludes a huge number of late arriving mail-in ballots.
Bottom line: no one in the last 40 years ever blamed the county DA for Oakland's sometimes very high levels of crime, but as soon as a Black, female reformer got the job a line was crossed.
Radley: Let me offer another perspective on why Price was recalled and why I think it exposes a huge blind spot in your approach to this Substack that makes it far less valuable than it could and should be.
Compare the “ten point platform” page on Pamela Price’s campaign website with the About page on Brooke Jenkins’ campaign website (which is the place where Jenkins trumpets her accomplishments and discusses her priorities):
If you’re the Alameda County DA, your first, second, and third priority has to be improving public safety. That is the job you’re being hired for.
But if you look at Price’s ten point platform, only two of the 10 points are focused on public safety: “Reduce gun violence” and “Protect Immigrants”; and even those two, when you look at the details, read more like a Republican’s caricature of left wing priorities than what most people want from a District Attorney.
This platform is crazy. And not because there is anything wrong with the individual points in it. With the exception of ending the death penalty (which I oppose but understand and respect the arguments of those who advocate for it), I actually AGREE with all the topline points in Price’s platform. But I never in a million years would support someone running for Alameda County DA on this platform, because what it communicates is that this person believes that the police and the prosecutors are the primary problems facing the county. And if you’re in a county where Oakland is the biggest city, that perspective is insane!
I’m glad that those are the numbers. I’m certainly a strong believer in criminal justice reform and reducing mass incarceration. It’s why I subscribe to both this Substack and Chloe’s, and I appreciate the work you do to highlight police and prosecutorial abuse (and as I’ve said before, your comprehensive take down of The Fall of Minneapolis and Coleman Hughes’ attack on the Chauvin conviction was an incredible public service) and Chloe’s efforts to highlight successful alternatives to policing for challenges like dealing with mental health calls.
Having said that, I also find both of your Substacks immensely frustrating because I think you both have an enormous blind spot, and it’s a blind spot that dramatically (and perhaps fatally) undermines your efforts to promote reform.
To repeat a point I made above, when people think about these issues, their first, second, and third priorities are to increase public safety, which means both reducing crime and increasing public order (Charles Lehman’s piece here is incredibly important: https://thecausalfallacy.com/p/its-time-to-talk-about-americas-disorder). In order to earn the public confidence to be able to take steps to reduce mass incarceration, reformers more than anyone else need to be focused first and foremost on reducing crime and disorder.
I wish you and Chloe would start devoting half (or at least a significant percentages) of your time to covering successful (or at least interesting) efforts to do so that are consistent with your goals, even if they may lead you in different directions than you might expect:
The police and prosecutors are not the enemy. Most are good people trying to do difficult jobs. If you want to have real impact, spend more time celebrating the good folks in these professions and their successes (and/or alternatives that have actually improved public safety) rather than focusing entirely on those police and prosecutors that are abusive. In the long run, that approach will be far more successful in achieving your goals than what you’re doing now.
It’s going to be interesting to watch, as many of the tech bros are linked to Epstein, the arrest of which I contributed to on The Intercept’s old comments section and on my indeterminately existing Twitter account from 2019: @davidvognar
Trump has been buddy-buddy with the police for a long time, mostly because they give him a pass for his sexual indiscretions and he gives them kickback money. There’s no other explanation for why so many police unions endorsed someone in trouble for breaking so many laws. (Other than the Freemason explanation.)
There was a libertarian/Koch brothers movement for decarceration but it’s kind of flagged. In Illinois, our non-cash bail has helped keep non-threatening arrestees out of the Cook County Jail and sped up some of the court proceedings. But it’s still so corrupt here, because of the police unions, the Democratic machine here that makes it impossible for non-connected candidates to get on the ballot and our reticent media that doesn’t go after the system (because many of them are movers and shakers, secret sect members or just plain lazy).
Rich dudes in Dallas got three propositions on the Nov. general election ballot, and two won. The most dangerous one was not aimed at police reform, but rather an attempt to get the City to hire more police officers. Nine hundred more, to be exact, and the city is required to devote 50% of new city revenue to police and fire pensions. That's about a 25% increase in the number of officers Dallas already has.
Just about every credible person in city government, and even the Dallas Police Association (union) says that's impossible. As former mayor, Mike Rawlings says; “Because you want to do it right, you want to make sure that the right ones [get] hired, you want to make sure they’re trained appropriately. The way that proposition is written, it’s going to be very, very dangerous to hire all those officers at once.”
Here's what the DPA spokesperson said: “Dallas Police Association, which represents thousands of Dallas police officers, is strongly opposed to all three of these amendments — which were contrived by a small group of people who do not live in Dallas, with no open dialogue, no experience on the subject matter and no communications with police association leaders that would be impacted by these amendments." That's pretty strong stuff from a police union!
If our broligarch overlords take over, it's possible we'll look back on Trump as not that bad.
Edited to add a cite for the source: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/28/texas-dallas-police-propositions-amendments/
Radley, I became a paid subscriber just to comment on this column.
My background: I've lived in Oakland since 1981, so I've seen some significant crime waves. The '80s and '90s were particularly bloody years, many of which featured triple-digit homicide totals. Since then, things have improved considerably, but this remains a poor city with extreme income inequality.
A quick correction: you should correct the spelling throughout the column of Mayor Sheng Thao's name!
Now on to the substance: it's important to note that the vote counts you cite throughout are not final. Alameda County still has a substantial (100,000 plus) number of ballots to count. Yes, we're slow, but this is in part because California counts all ballots received through the Tuesday following Election Day, as long as they were mailed on or before November 5. In addition, it is not clear to me yet by what margin Oakland voters will have rejected Price. Her 2022 victory was driven by Oakland voters (we're the largest city in the county), and I suspect her 2024 recall will be driven largely by non-Oakland votes. That doesn't mean that she will WIN in Oakland...just that this city was her base, and that I suspect she will lose here by a much smaller margin than she loses in the rest of the county.
Both recalls were funded (as you note) by tech and real estate interests. There is NO WAY either recall would have got off the ground without that money. The recall process has been permanently tainted by Citizens United. Rich people have figured out a way to unseat politicians they don't like. This started with Boudin; we are already seeing hints that Contra Costa DA Diana Becton will be next on their hit list.
Pamela Price and Sheng Thao weren't perfect, of course, but anti-democratic forces wouldn't even allow them to complete their terms. It's a dangerous time.
Thanks for this. The vote totals on the Alameda County website say 100 percent reported. Is that not accurate?
EDIT: I see now. As you say, 100 percent of precincts reporting apparently doesn't include a substantial number of mail-in ballots.
Yes, this mistake happens every election cycle. The Registrar of Voters' website indicates 100% of precincts have been counted, but this only reflects a)in person ballots and b)mail-in ballots received several days prior to Election Day. It excludes a huge number of late arriving mail-in ballots.
Bottom line: no one in the last 40 years ever blamed the county DA for Oakland's sometimes very high levels of crime, but as soon as a Black, female reformer got the job a line was crossed.
Radley: Let me offer another perspective on why Price was recalled and why I think it exposes a huge blind spot in your approach to this Substack that makes it far less valuable than it could and should be.
Compare the “ten point platform” page on Pamela Price’s campaign website with the About page on Brooke Jenkins’ campaign website (which is the place where Jenkins trumpets her accomplishments and discusses her priorities):
https://www.pamelaprice4da.com/platform
https://www.brookejenkinssf.com/about
Too many parts of Oakland are far too unsafe. This CNN piece on the first In-N-Out site ever to permanently close is a great encapsulation of that: (https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/food/in-n-out-oakland-closure-crime/index.html
If you’re the Alameda County DA, your first, second, and third priority has to be improving public safety. That is the job you’re being hired for.
But if you look at Price’s ten point platform, only two of the 10 points are focused on public safety: “Reduce gun violence” and “Protect Immigrants”; and even those two, when you look at the details, read more like a Republican’s caricature of left wing priorities than what most people want from a District Attorney.
This platform is crazy. And not because there is anything wrong with the individual points in it. With the exception of ending the death penalty (which I oppose but understand and respect the arguments of those who advocate for it), I actually AGREE with all the topline points in Price’s platform. But I never in a million years would support someone running for Alameda County DA on this platform, because what it communicates is that this person believes that the police and the prosecutors are the primary problems facing the county. And if you’re in a county where Oakland is the biggest city, that perspective is insane!
I also follow Chloe Cockburn (in fact, it was through one of her posts that I first discovered this Substack) and in the comment section to a post about the DA races (and Prop 36), she pointed to this page to demonstrate that there is strong support for criminal justice reform: https://www.fwd.us/news/new-polling-confirms-ongoing-support-for-criminal-justice-reform-ahead-of-november-2024-election/
I’m glad that those are the numbers. I’m certainly a strong believer in criminal justice reform and reducing mass incarceration. It’s why I subscribe to both this Substack and Chloe’s, and I appreciate the work you do to highlight police and prosecutorial abuse (and as I’ve said before, your comprehensive take down of The Fall of Minneapolis and Coleman Hughes’ attack on the Chauvin conviction was an incredible public service) and Chloe’s efforts to highlight successful alternatives to policing for challenges like dealing with mental health calls.
Having said that, I also find both of your Substacks immensely frustrating because I think you both have an enormous blind spot, and it’s a blind spot that dramatically (and perhaps fatally) undermines your efforts to promote reform.
To repeat a point I made above, when people think about these issues, their first, second, and third priorities are to increase public safety, which means both reducing crime and increasing public order (Charles Lehman’s piece here is incredibly important: https://thecausalfallacy.com/p/its-time-to-talk-about-americas-disorder). In order to earn the public confidence to be able to take steps to reduce mass incarceration, reformers more than anyone else need to be focused first and foremost on reducing crime and disorder.
I wish you and Chloe would start devoting half (or at least a significant percentages) of your time to covering successful (or at least interesting) efforts to do so that are consistent with your goals, even if they may lead you in different directions than you might expect:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-best-way-to-end-mass-incarceration
The police and prosecutors are not the enemy. Most are good people trying to do difficult jobs. If you want to have real impact, spend more time celebrating the good folks in these professions and their successes (and/or alternatives that have actually improved public safety) rather than focusing entirely on those police and prosecutors that are abusive. In the long run, that approach will be far more successful in achieving your goals than what you’re doing now.
It’s going to be interesting to watch, as many of the tech bros are linked to Epstein, the arrest of which I contributed to on The Intercept’s old comments section and on my indeterminately existing Twitter account from 2019: @davidvognar
Trump has been buddy-buddy with the police for a long time, mostly because they give him a pass for his sexual indiscretions and he gives them kickback money. There’s no other explanation for why so many police unions endorsed someone in trouble for breaking so many laws. (Other than the Freemason explanation.)
There was a libertarian/Koch brothers movement for decarceration but it’s kind of flagged. In Illinois, our non-cash bail has helped keep non-threatening arrestees out of the Cook County Jail and sped up some of the court proceedings. But it’s still so corrupt here, because of the police unions, the Democratic machine here that makes it impossible for non-connected candidates to get on the ballot and our reticent media that doesn’t go after the system (because many of them are movers and shakers, secret sect members or just plain lazy).