Grading the Democratic Candidates on Criminal Justice — by Frank Rudy Cooper, Addie Rolnick, and Stewart Chang
In a stark change from the Clinton era, the Democratic Presidential candidates all seem to be calling for dramatic changes to the criminal justice system. On the surface, they have many of the same positions, like ending private prisons, fixing racial disparities, and reducing incarceration. From our vantage point as scholars who are especially concerned about the impact of the law on poor and racial minority communities, we see meaningful differences.
As leaders of the UNLV Boyd School of Law’s Program on Race, Gender & Policing, we organized a panel of law professors and community activists on criminal justice issues in the campaign on Tuesday, February 18, 2020. To prepare, we reviewed the platforms of the leading candidates on a wide range of criminal justice issues.
Based on everything we have learned, we offer a report card for the leading candidates based on our hopes that a new President will not merely duplicate Obama’s efforts, but bring about structural change. The best platforms offer a far-reaching vision plus a realistic assessment of what a President can fix alone, and how to work with Congress and states to make more sweeping change. We conclude that two candidates are exemplary, two candidates offer surprising hope, one candidate would at least uphold Obama’s legacy, but two candidates lag noticeably behind the new Democratic norm.
Elizabeth Warren : A. Warren takes the most progressive position on virtually all of the issues. She would end cash bail, increase police oversight and accountability, end federal use of private prisons (including for immigration detainees), end the agreements that require local police to enforce immigration laws, end the crack/powder cocaine disparity, legalize marijuana, and expunge past convictions. What stands out in her plan are the details. Everything we have learned suggests that she would both effect immediate changes and advocate for the funding laws that can push states to change their practices.
Bernie Sanders: A. Like Warren, Sanders takes the most progressive positions on nearly every issue. As Mass Liberation Project’s Jagada Chambers noted at our panel, Sanders has reformers on his team who call for radical transformation of the criminal justice system. While his plans sometimes lack the detail of Warren’s, Sanders goes further on some issues, such as applying the bedrock principle of one-person-one-vote to people in prison, not just upon release.
Tom Steyer: B+. At our panel, many people were surprised by the strength of Steyer’s platform. His progressive priorities include ending cash bail, investing in public defenders and reentry services, ending the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, updating sentencing guidelines, and prioritizing alternatives to incarceration. While Steyer’s plans are vague in some places, he is specific about ending the school-to-prison pipeline by creating a Bureau of Juvenile Justice, funding diversion programs, and keeping very young children out of the system. Steyer explicitly frames criminal justice reform as a matter of racial justice, a truth many other candidates avoid expressing. Our concern is that his lack of political experience makes it impossible to tell whether he would stick to and effectively execute his laudable goals.
Pete Buttigieg: B. Buttigieg is the most progressive of the moderates. He cites the need for bail reform, but would not necessarily end cash bail. He supports a constitutional amendment to end the death penalty, but does not commit to ending federal executions. He wants to reduce the use of solitary confinement, but not eliminate it. He would restore Pell grants and Medicaid to incarcerated people. He would increase police oversight through the Department of Justice and create national-level training on bias and a national database of police killings. While Buttigieg admits that he has appropriately been criticized for his handling of the police in South Bend, his “Douglas Plan for Black America” is outstanding. Anyone concerned about Black America should read it.
Joe Biden: C. Biden’s plan is detailed and clear, but it offers reform, not transformation. His plan on the school-to-prison-pipeline is to offer “guidance” to schools. He would decriminalize marijuana and expunge past convictions, but stops short of legalization. On the other hand, he has a thorough plan to restore rights and services to formerly incarcerated people, expand the federal ban-the-box policy, and encourage states to restore voting rights. Some of these reforms would apply only to “non-violent” offenders, which would limit their impact. His long record is also mixed: he was an original backer of the first Violence Against Women Act, but sponsored one of the most punitive crime bills since 1964, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Biden looks like a return to the Obama era, but we have come to expect much more than that.
Michael Bloomberg: D. On many issues, Bloomberg’s plan is similar to Biden’s, but it lacks detail. He does not explain how he would end money bail or reduce disparities in incarceration. The real problem is his record. He directed the NYPD to implement a “stop-question-and-frisk” policy that overwhelmingly targeted black and brown neighborhoods. Under his leadership, the annual number of such stops increased from 100,000 per year (under Mayor Rudy Giuliani) to 700,000 per year. He strenuously defended the policy even after a federal judge declared it unconstitutional and made comments as recently at 2015 showing that he believed in policing black and brown neighborhoods much differently than other neighborhoods. As Las Vegas community leader Shondra Summers-Armstrong said at the panel (paraphrasing Maya Angelou), “when people tell you who they are, believe them.”
Amy Klobuchar: D. The centerpiece of Klobuchar’s plan is to use executive clemency to reduce incarceration and correct disparities. Clemency is an important presidential power that can be leveraged for good, but clemency alone cannot fix the inequality and over-reliance on prison that is deeply rooted in our system. On other issues, she either declines to take the boldest positions (for example, she would “end reliance” on private prisons and “reform” cash bail system) or she does not even have a plan at all (restoring voting rights, police accountability). Unlike the other candidates, her website does not even include an issue page dedicated to criminal justice reform. This is striking because, as a former prosecutor, she is undoubtedly familiar with the issues.
Professors Stewart Chang, Frank Rudy Cooper, and Addie Rolnick are Board members of UNLV Boyd School of Law’s Program on Race, Gender & Policing.
