Recent editorials from Alabama newspapers:
___
Jan. 28
The Decatur Daily on a bill that was introduced by state Sen. Arthur Orr that could end civil asset forfeiture at the state and local level if it is enacted:
A bill pending in the Alabama Legislature could end one of the state’s many longstanding injustices.
Civil asset forfeiture is a problem not just in Alabama, but nationwide. It creates bad incentives for law enforcement and goes against the hallowed principle of innocent until proven guilty.
State Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, introduced Senate Bill 213 last week. The bill has six co-sponsors and deserves the support of the entire Legislature. If enacted, SB 213 would end civil asset forfeiture at the state and local level.
It also would restrict local law enforcement’s involvement with civil forfeiture proceedings undertaken by federal law enforcement, resulting when federal, state and local law enforcement cooperate on a case. Local agencies could participate in the federal “equitable sharing” program only in major cases involving property valued in excess of $100,000.
Civil asset forfeiture most often occurs in drug cases, but not exclusively. Because it’s a civil proceeding, it takes place apart from any criminal case. As a result, suspects can be denied their property even when they’re acquitted of wrongdoing or the charges against them are dropped. Some people spend years trying to get back their property. Some never do.
That’s because, unlike criminal cases, which require people to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases must meet only the lesser standard of “preponderance of the evidence.”
In effect, civil asset forfeiture acts as a criminal penalty imposed, through legal hocus pocus, on a lesser standard than would pass muster in a criminal court. It is an affront to the Constitution, America’s legal traditions and the rule of law.
This month, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice released a report on the state of civil asset forfeiture in Alabama. The report chronicles a sad parade of individuals who lost their property to civil forfeiture even though they were never found guilty of a crime. Some, like Michael Coleman and Jacquard Merritt, were never even charged, which was the case in 25 percent of the instances the report examined.
Orr’s bill would put a stop to that. Criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction, would remain on the books, so no one actually convicted of a crime would get to keep their ill-gotten gains.
Left-of-center groups such as the SPLC and Alabama Appleseed aren’t the only ones concerned about the injustices of Alabama’s present civil asset forfeiture regime. The libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, supported in part by progressives’ favorite bogeymen Charles and David Koch, gives Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws a D- grade, noting that in “Alabama, law enforcement keeps 100 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property, creating a strong incentive to seize.”
SB 213 would restore the legal balance in Alabama. It would require the government to make its case in criminal court and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before taking someone’s property.
According to the Institute for Justice’s Nick Sibilla, if SB 213 becomes law, “Alabama would be just the fourth state to eliminate civil forfeiture, following the lead of Nebraska, New Mexico and North Carolina.”
Also according to Sibilla, the $100,000 floor on participating in federal equitable sharing would be tied with Ohio’s for the highest in the nation.
SB 213 is a sweeping reform of an unjust system, and Orr and his co-sponsors deserve praise for not taking half measures. This is a bill that could be a model of criminal justice reform for the rest of the nation, and the federal government, too, which, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, unfortunately has become only more enamored with civil asset forfeiture.
The Alabama Senate and House should pass the bill, and Gov. Kay Ivey should sign it, as is, no amendments. This is an easy call. The Legislature should make it and move on.
Online: http://www.decaturdaily.com/
___
Jan. 30
Dothan Eagle on child-care facilities:
Last year, Alabama lawmakers debated a change to the child care industry that would make all child-care facilities conform to the same health and safety standards - staff/child ratios, staff CPR training and background checks, and inspections that ensure buildings, grounds, and equipment are properly maintained.
Those requirements make common sense, but they don’t apply to church-based child care operations. And by coincidence or design, nearly half of the state’s 1,914 day cares claim the religious exemption.
Some faith-based child care operations strive to maintain those standards, although they’re not required to do so. The effort last year to remove the exemption and standardize the requirements for all child care facilities passed the House of Representatives after vigorous debate, but failed to get a vote in the state Senate.
Several weeks after the session ended, a 5-year-old child enrolled in an exempt center in Mobile died after being left in daycare vehicle.
This week, a similar measure was passed in a House committee and has been sent to the floor. This year’s measure is diluted - it foregoes the licensing requirement, but allows for annual inspections, requires submission of staff names and criminal histories, and mandates signage stating that a center is not state-licensed. Centers receiving government subsidies must be licensed.
Opponents voice concerns about government intrusion into church business, and some see the requirements as an affront to religious liberty.
However, another perspective is that the existing rule exempts some day-care children from the minimum standards of health and safety required by the state.
Reasonable requirements that ensure the well-being and safety of the children entrusted with child-care facilities statewide should trump concerns of government interference. If faith-based child care operations want to retain the exemption from state licensure, they must create standards of their own that meet or exceed the requirements of the state.
The children deserve that safety; the parents should demand it.
Online: http://www.dothaneagle.com/
___
Jan. 29
The Gadsden Times on getting the state out of the marriage business:
People are never going to reach common ground on some issues. We don’t say that with relish, satisfaction or smugness. We say that having observed too many such impasses over the years, especially when one side has a non-earthly, spiritual motivation.
That doesn’t mean efforts to find such ground or to promote compromise shouldn’t take place, mind you. We think that’s the preferable option and should always be the first one.
However, when the debate starts swirling around in little circles in the atmosphere (and people aren’t listening to each other anyway), it becomes a waste of time. At that point, it’s about moving forward as best you can, and if folks are unhappy, they’ll just have to get over it.
That’s how we see the Alabama Legislature’s attempt to “take the state out of the marriage business.”
The effort stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage - and prompted a meltdown in Alabama, which if it isn’t the most conservative state in the union on social issues is pushing hard for the top spot.
Former Chief Justice Roy Moore tried to pressure the state’s probate judges into ignoring that ruling, and was suspended from office for his troubles.
However, some Alabama probate judges, acting on their own and insisting that their Christian beliefs prevent them from being involved with same-sex marriage, stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, relying on the clause in state law that says they “may,” instead of “shall,” issue licenses.
That has drawn criticism as being unfair to all couples and forcing folks who live in those counties to jump through unacceptable hoops to get married.
Each year since 2015, Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, has offered a bill addressing the situation. It failed the first three times; it seems to have a strong chance of passing this year, having already won approval in the Senate and a House committee.
Currently, someone who gets a marriage license must, within 30 days, either “solemnize” the nuptials with a ceremony performed by someone authorized to do so (like a minister), or let a probate judge do it.
Albritton’s bill would remove the ceremony requirement and allow a couple to make a marriage official simply by submitting an affidavit to a probate judge (the fee would be the same as for a current marriage license).
As long as the two parties were at least 18 (or 16 with their parents’ consent), not hitched to anyone else and not related, the judge would be required by law to accept it. There would be zero leeway for religious or other personal beliefs.
The bill would not prevent anyone, of any gender, from throwing the most costly and lavish wedding shindig imaginable; holding a quiet, romantic little ceremony in an old country church in the pines; or walking into a courthouse as two and leaving as one.
We imagine the unhappiness will come from those who insist probate judges “should be forced to do their jobs, which they shouldn’t have run for if they were going to insert their personal beliefs into everything.”
We hear that argument, but will offer this counter: Are you looking for strife? Are you looking to be able to rub stuff in people’s noses? Or do you want to clear the way for people to get married without any hassle?
Hearts and minds aren’t going to be changed on same-sex marriage in Alabama any time soon, no matter how strongly it’s now codified into U.S. law. This qualifies to us as “moving forward as best you can.”
Online: http://www.gadsdentimes.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.