- [Some] Republicans against employers’ rights? Notion of forbidding employers from asking for proof of vaccination has at least one backer in the General Assembly [Laura Olson, Maryland Matters]
- Councilmember Hans Riemer is now running for Montgomery County Executive. MDGEO county employee union has used hardball tactics against him in past [Seventh State]
- I joined Yuripzy Morgan’s WBAL show to discuss guaranteed-income programs that discriminate by race;
- “Research shows, time and again, however, that bans on single‐use plastic bags can have unintended consequences, not least by inducing substitution towards alternatives with potentially worse environmental impacts.” [Ryan Bourne and Erin_Partin, Cato; earlier here, etc.]
- As of six months ago, 35 states followed the stand-your-ground doctrine in self-defense cases, while 15 followed duty-to-retreat. Maryland is in the minority, prescribing duty to retreat with a sole exception of the home [Eugene Volokh]
- Renowned New Haven pizzeria Frank Pepe’s still plans 2021 Bethesda opening [Washingtonian]
Marilyn Mosby, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, doesn’t like the many critical and investigative stories that WBFF Baltimore has run about her and just sent an astonishing letter to the Federal Communications Commission demanding that its “coverage [be] curtailed and ceased.” Mosby’s letter really must be seen to be believed: it openly seeks to intimidate and chill speech protected by the First Amendment.
Notes UCLA lawprof and leading free speech law expert Eugene Volokh writes: “I note that none of the letter’s claims of ‘distortion’ are supported by any actual explanation of why the stories are supposedly inconsistent with the facts.” After examining and dismissing as unactionable other charges raised in the Mosby letter, including invasion of her privacy, he adds: “certainly critical news coverage, whether of prosecutors, police officers, or anyone else, can’t be suppressed on the grounds that some tiny fraction of the audience may be so angered by it that they will commit crimes against the people being criticized. I expect the FCC to (rightly) dismiss the complaint.”
I joined host Dan Sally last month at the nonpartisan You Don’t Have To Yell podcast for a discussion of gerrymandering and redistricting in Maryland and other states. You can listen here.
- “Do-it-yourself manufacturing has always hobbled authorities’ ability to control things they don’t like, and the modern ghost gun movement specifically evolved to put personal armaments beyond the reach of the state.” [J.D. Tuccille/Reason] Nonetheless, some in Annapolis hope a legal ban will defy the technology [Hannah Gaskill, Maryland Matters]
- West Coast bills attempting to force pay raises for grocery workers backfire. A bill in the Maryland General Assembly would try the same thing [Brad Palumbo, FEE]
- “Opinion: Lawmakers Should Oppose Bill to Retroactively Allow Old Lawsuits” [Sean Caine, Maryland Matters]
- New report from legislative analysis office confirms that in Montgomery County, as elsewhere, legal curbs on rents can be expected to have highly damaging economic consequences [Adam Pagnucco, Seventh State; Ryan Bourne, Cato]
- Not all the Montgomery County housing proposals are wretched, one would ease rules for constructing duplexes/triplexes/etc. [Dan Reed, Greater Greater Washington]
- Latest proposed Annapolis imposition on business would ban plastic bags at retailers. Hope Gov. Hogan has his veto pen ready [Madison Hunt, CNS/Maryland Reporter and Elizabeth Shwe/Maryland Matters]
- Hey, I’m in the news again on gerrymander reform [WBOC, video of governor’s press conference, more information and portal to apply for citizen seats]
- Comptroller Peter Franchot urges lawmakers to “back off” Kirwan override: “They don’t know where the $4 billion…is going to come from, other than ‘maybe this’ and ‘maybe that.’ ” [Bruce DePuyt, Maryland Matters] Kirwan bill “is far more about grabbing political power than improving the quality of education.” [Sen. Bob Cassilly, Maryland Matters]
- Maryland bill would enact only-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising. General Assembly should sustain Hogan’s veto of this bad measure [Rebecca Snyder, ] Frederick News-Post
- In fatal no-knock raid shooting of Duncan Lemp, “clouded by the conflicting accounts and the lack of video evidence,” MoCo state’s attorney’s office issues report excusing police from blame [C.J. Ciaramella, Reason]
- Less latitude for bullies to file speech-deterring lawsuits: “Decision breathes some life into Maryland’s weak anti-SLAPP statute” [Paul Alan Levy]
- As if restaurants in Prince George’s County haven’t suffered enough this past year [Baylen Linnekin, Reason on nannyish children’s meal measure]
On Jan. 6, when Congress meets to count electoral votes, some members may object from the floor on whether or not to accept each state’s electoral college submission, and if there is such an objection from at least one member of each House, the members will go on record on whether to approve. The result appears to be a foregone conclusion; in practice neither House will agree to overturn a certified state outcome (Democrats will organize the House, while in the Republican Senate only a minority of Trump ultras at most will contest Joe Biden’s victory.)
Whatever you think of this, much of it is not new; a version of it happened four years ago. Even though Donald Trump had obviously won a lawful victory in the 2016 electoral college, a few left-wing Democrats insisted on mounting a floor challenge. What followed is choice enough to quote, from a 2017 account in Slate:
Senate President Joe Biden oversaw the proceedings. On the Democratic side of the aisle, a half-dozen or so members, including Reps. Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Raúl Grijalva and freshman Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jamie Raskin, switched seats to take turns raising objections. The objections varied from state to state. In North Carolina the objections hinged on the state’s effective disenfranchisement of black voters. But most objections referenced Russia’s interference in the election.”
Biden was having little of it, and banged the gavel loudly, because none of the members were able to find a senatorial co-signator, thus voiding their objections. The much more populated Republican side of the aisle booed or called out “order!” following each denied objection. When Rep. Jayapal gave her objection, Biden finally said, “It is over.” Republicans gave him a standing ovation.
I am pained to record that lefty Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), one of the loopy few that day, represents my own community in the House of Representatives. If circus-like proceedings do unfold this coming Jan. 6, Raskin will be one of the few Democratic members not in a good position to complain.
The University of Maryland’s public policy school “is apparently about to require faculty members to add a statement to their syllabus” avowing a series of deeply ideological commitments on topics ranging from “anti-racism” to Indian land acknowledgments. It will also impose rules about how classroom discussions and materials must treat topics related to diversity. Both policies are inconsistent with principles of academic freedom, notes Eugene Volokh.
As a public institution, UMD comes under First Amendment constraints that a private educational institution would not face, and it is likely that some of the new rules overstep those First Amendment prohibitions as well. You can read more about the proposals here.
- I joined host Mark Uncapher to discuss the successful Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and we got into a bit of Maryland stuff too [DirectLine, Montgomery County Republican Club YouTube audio, more]
- Procedural issue, not substance: “Supreme Court takes appeal of Baltimore climate-change lawsuit” [Daniel Fisher]
- “What Happened to MoCo’s Racial Equity Law?” [Adam Pagnucco/Seventh State, from the summer; Steven Malanga, City Journal earlier on municipal chief equity officers]
- “Del. Cox tweets QAnon hashtag, a theory that’s been widely debunked” [Steve Bohnel, Frederick News-Post; earlier]
- Also, as for Del. Dan Cox’s calling me (among other bad things) a “Hogan GOP rhino pretender,” if you think it’s easy to be a rhino pretender, you should see how long it takes to get into the costume [same]
- Standards for admission of expert witness testimony: “Maryland Drifts Into Daubert” [Michelle Yeary, Ronald Miller]
A working group of Maryland lawmakers appointed by House of Delegates Speaker Adrienne Jones yesterday recommended that the state repeal its first‐in‐the‐nation Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, a law that I and others have inveighed against for years.
As I wrote in 2015:
Maryland was the first state to pass a LEOBR, in 1972, and by now many states have followed, invariably after lobbying from police unions and associations. Often the bills are sponsored by Republicans, who seem to forget their normal skepticism of public employees as an interest group when uniformed services are involved.
Despite minor revisions following the Freddie Gray episode, the Maryland law retains its most objectionable features, as I observed in a piece this summer, including a five‐business‐day “get your story straight” period in which a department cannot question officers after an incident; rules prescribing that the process of investigation and discipline be reserved in general to fellow officers; and a lid on the release of information in which the public is legitimately interested.
As lawmakers observed at a late September hearing, repeal would still leave in place numerous other mechanisms by which police officers charged with misconduct could resist investigation and discipline, including state civil service rules, union contract provisions, and Supreme Court doctrines giving public employees constitutional rights to contest some dismissals.
Definitions vary, but per one 2015 roundup, at least a dozen other states as of then had enacted bills similar to Maryland’s into law, including California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. All states with such a law, and the equivalent laws sometimes enacted for correctional officers, should follow Maryland’s lead in considering repeal. And the truly terrible idea of making everything worse by imposing LEOBR rules from shore to shore, a perennial measure championed in the U.S. Congress by such as Sens. Mitch McConnell (R‐Ky.) and Joe Biden (D‐Del.), should be buried on the ocean floor, never to rise again.
[My opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2020]
Never Trump, Now More Than Ever
Mr. Trump erodes public trust and embarrasses his office. Join me in not voting for him.
By Walter Olson
Four years ago I was a “Never Trump” voter. Now, I’m more set than ever in that view: No Trump, doubled. That’s even though I far prefer his economic policies to those of the Democrats. I’ve written many times to defend his administration’s policies against unfair attacks from the left, and I’ve applauded his judicial appointments. But I won’t vote for him, for reasons of Constitution and character.
No modern president has shown so little care for or grasp of how government works—for instance, what powers the president does and doesn’t have. None have found it as hard to put the nation’s well-being above his own, on matters as basic as setting aside the interests of his family business.
Especially vital is that a president set aside personal interest in relations with foreign powers. He should present a united front with his domestic political rivals against foreign meddling in U.S. politics, and he should refrain from using U.S. leverage over weaker countries to seek personal electoral advantage. In the Russia and Ukraine affairs, it’s true that some of his opponents went beyond the available evidence in charging him with misconduct. But even shorn of exaggeration, his conduct fell short of what Americans should expect.
At the start I was happy to allow the man a honeymoon, thinking the shock of great responsibility might lead him to put away childish things, that he might mature as did Shakespeare’s Hal (in Henry IV) and banish his internal Falstaff. Mr. Trump didn’t change. He won’t change now.
I’m no foreign-policy interventionist, but it is wrong to envy the methods of overseas strongmen. Friends who plan to vote for him don’t deny the lack of impulse control, the vindictive meanness of spirit, the Niagara of lies. Don’t fuss so much about the man himself, they say. Follow the policies.
But the presidency—unlike the Senate, where self-absorbed talkers can sail by for years without notice—has executive responsibility. It is charged with delicate relations with rival foreign powers, and with responding to crises.
When the crisis came as a pandemic, a different president, conscious of his limitations, might have stepped back to let Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx do the talking. But Mr. Trump has bluffed his way through life claiming to know more than the experts. He needs to be the groom at every wedding and the infant at every christening.
Stories abound of how zany ideas are quietly tamped down, or ignored entirely, by appointees around the agencies. But that’s not a stable situation. In time he will insert more personal loyalists into agency jobs.
Remember the “character counts” conservatives? The classicists who went back beyond the Federalist Papers to the Greeks and Romans to ground conservatism in civitas and virtue? Who thought deeply about the dangers to the republic from a man on horseback, a demagogic flatterer of the people, who preaches “I alone can fix it”?
“But he fights.” He is a litigious man who has openly boasted of using losing lawsuits to harm his critics. Yes, a president needs some combative spirit, but it should be discerning—especially when aimed at fellow Americans—and give way in due season to a spirit of reconciliation.
We don’t know when the next crisis will come. It might be a close election in which Mr. Trump needs to accept the decision of the judiciary. We might need national unity. Instead, this man’s tweets are the ground glass in the national milkshake.
A high degree of social trust is needed both for a dynamic economy and for the rule of law. But as legal scholar Orin Kerr puts it, “the president’s signature move is to attack the legitimacy of everyone and every institution who is not in lockstep with him.”
Some offer the “Flight 93 election” theory, in which every four years we face a last-chance, bet-the-country abyss. I don’t buy it. Our country has a system of rotation in office. The other party gets its turn, and the country survives. It will survive Donald Trump, too. But the country should not have to face four more years of him.
Mr. Olson‘s books include “The Litigation Explosion.”