Weekly Briefing

Will the state Senate allow a vote on the Racial Justice Act?

Running a place like the North Carolina Senate is no easy job. The place is crammed with 50 oversized egos and surrounded by scads of staff, reporters, lobbyists and hangers on. In addition, the group is formally divided into two warring political parties and, less formally, countless other groups and alliances-each bent on group and individual self-preservation and, occasionally advancing an actual policy agenda.

Add to this reality the fact that those who populate this strange little universe are as wacky and diverse as your high school graduating class (i.e. honest, corrupt, greedy, self-sacrificing, sincere, phony, hardworking, lazy, open-minded, holier-than-thou, teetotalers, partiers, brilliant and well-informed, uninformed and unread) and it's a wonder that much at all gets accomplished. Now add the requirement that a majority of the group must come together with a majority of another group of 120 egos and a governor to pass the laws that will govern a fast-growing state of eight-million souls during a time of unprecedented challenges and it's sometimes amazing that things work as well as they do.

Given the nature of the place, it's not surprising that some who manage to accumulate a little power are tempted to do whatever they can to maintain it. The competition is so intense, the tendency toward disorder so strong, and the perks of power so appealing that it's understandable that those in power would want to keep a lid on things - to avoid controversy and to avoid public debates that might lead to unpopular or unpredictable results.

And still, such debates are something that all progressive North Carolinians should continue to demand. While strong legislative leadership and political pragmatism are certainly important and valuable commodities worth embracing - especially when they're used to prevent political manipulations by demagogues - progressives should not, in general, shy away from demanding open debate on controversial policy proposals, even when the results and long-term political implications are uncertain.    

The Racial Justice Act

A classic example of a legislative proposal that deserves more public debate and less overbearing control by the political pragmatists who run the show is a bill currently sitting in the state Senate known as the Racial Justice Act. This rather modest little measure was first introduced in the state House of Representatives 15 months ago in April of 2007. It has one, very simple and straightforward objective: to assure that no one is subjected to the death penalty in North Carolina if it can be proven that his or her death sentence is a byproduct of race.

Under state law, the decision of whether or not to seek the death penalty in a murder prosecution lies with the District Attorney. Though designed, of course, to accommodate the myriad factual differences that accompany each murder, this prosecutorial discretion has over the years worked a significant injustice in many, many circumstances. In fact, statistics show that a defendant charged with murdering a white victim is as much as three times more likely to receive a death sentence than those with non-white victims. On North Carolina death row, right now, more than three out of five persons is a minority.

The impact of such a profound unfairness on our society is evident and significant. Aside from the direct and most horrific result (i.e. the fact that, amongst two equally culpable humans, one will live and one will die because of race) there is the overarching matter of the way such wrongs undermine faith in our criminal justice system. Especially in a state that has never fully cleansed itself of the malignant racism of slavery and the Jim Crow era that followed, such a state of affairs is simply unacceptable if it ever hopes to construct a truly integrated and color-blind society.      

The Racial Justice Act seeks to combat the unfairness of race-based death sentences in a simple and straightforward fashion. The bill puts it this way:

"No person shall be subject to or given a sentence of death, or shall be executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race."

It then goes on to say how a defendant can put on statistical evidence to demonstrate that his or her death sentence can was so obtained.

"The defendant shall state with particularity how the evidence supports a claim that racial considerations played a significant part in the decision either to seek a death sentence or to impose a death sentence in his or her case….The defendant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that race was the basis of the decision to seek the death penalty. The State may offer evidence in rebuttal of the claims or evidence of the defendant."

Of course, not all death sentences are the result of race. For these individuals, the Racial Justice Act will offer no relief. Indeed, if the contentions of those who oppose the bill as unnecessary are correct, such a law should have little effect at all. For those death sentences that are proved to be the result of race, however, the proposal will serve as a critical double-check. Especially in a state in which the death penalty machinery has shown itself of late to be so frequently and egregiously flawed, such a double-check seems the least that society can do to prevent injustice.

Bill status

Last May, the Racial Justice Act had passed the House by a 68-51 margin. Since that time, however, the bill has moldered away in the Senate Judiciary II Committee, without so much as a hearing. Though the Committee is chaired (in a nod to bi-artisanship from the Senate leadership) by Republican Fletcher Hartsell, most observers believe that the critical factor behind the bill's ongoing stall is the failure of Senate Democratic leaders to give the bill a go-ahead for debate. In keeping with the Senate leadership's penchant for tight control and avoidance of controversial debates, the measure has been squirreled away in hopes of "saving" members from being forced to vote on a proposal that might be used by opportunistic and/or demagogic candidates as grounds for a negative and misleading campaign ad. More charitable observers think Senate leaders are simply trying to avoid a vote on a matter that divides their party caucus.

Whatever the case, now would be a good time to set caution, pragmatism and top-down control aside. There is little indication that any of the 68 House members who voted for the measure has been set up for defeat as a result of last year's vote. Moreover there is strong evidence that support for the proposal is broad and growing - even amongst those who strongly support the death penalty. Last week, a group of more than 320 members of the clergy from a wide variety of faiths and locales across North Carolina weighed in support of the bill by signing a letter that was unveiled in a press conference at the General Assembly.

Going forward

Reports from inside the legislature indicate that Senate Democrats may discuss the Racial Justice Act in a caucus meeting this week - perhaps as early as tonight. Such meetings are sometimes used by Senate leaders to gauge the depth of support amongst members for various proposals and to help them decide whether or not to allow a measure to be put up for a vote. Let's hope that a large majority of Senate Democrats speak out at this event in favor of the proposal.

Regardless of the outcome of any such meeting, however, Senate leaders would do well to simply allow the measure to proceed and to let the chips fall where they may. The measure may or may not garner the support it needs to pass in committee and/or on the Senate floor in 2008, but at this point North Carolinians deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on such an important issue.

Senate leaders may even be pleasantly surprised at the results they see - both in the electorate and in their own bathroom mirrors.     

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, June 30th, 2008 at 11:55 am and is filed under Weekly Briefing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.