Recent editorials from Texas newspapers

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Texas newspapers:

The Dallas Morning News. May 27, 2018.

Chances are good that you’ve bought or sold something using an online marketplace site. And you’ve probably had that queasy feeling in your gut prior to the meet-up, wondering whether the exchange with a random stranger will be safe and problem-free.

The potential for things going badly is the reason we strongly support the Dallas Police Department’s new partnership with the online marketplace app OfferUp to create the city’s first designated safety exchange zone outside a southeast Oak Cliff substation.

Clearly marked spaces outside the station at 1999 E. Camp Wisdom Road will be well lit and equipped with video cameras provided free by OfferUp. Surveillance footage will be recorded and accessible to police.

This is preventative policing at its best that can make a positive difference in communities. So we hope Dallas Police Chief U. Renee Hall will create more of these throughout the city.

What better place than a police substation to discourage the kind of criminal activity that has popped up around these exchanges? If folks are reluctant to meet in the shadows of law enforcement, that’s likely a sign you don’t want to do business with them.

Dozens of online buy-sell-trade sites exist, from the well-known Craigslist and Dallas-based 5miles to the newer Letgo and Oodle - and their numbers are growing. While the sites offer a quick and convenient way to buy and sell goods, the exchanges can involve dangerous individuals and robberies, some of which have turned deadly.

For example, in April, a man was sentenced to life in prison for the 2016 murder of a woman who was selling iPhones online through the OfferUp app outside Medieval Times in Dallas. In December 2016, another woman was killed in Dallas after setting up a sale of gold jewelry through the 5miles marketplace app; a man was arrested in connection with that slaying in February 2017.

In January of this year, two people were shot to death in Garland following an argument over a camera listed for sale on Offerup.

No one wants repeats of that kind of tragedy. It was past time for Dallas police to provide a safe place for transactions.

Police departments including Grand Prairie, Arlington, Fort Worth and those across the country have offered these designated spots for several years now. In Bedford, in addition to the parking spots outside, the police department welcomes the public inside the lobby to request a check of serial and/or VIN numbers to determine whether the items are stolen.

That’s next-level service. For now, we’re glad to see Dallas make a start. The Oak Cliff safety exchange location won’t stop all the people bent on wrongdoing, but it’s a step in the right direction.

___

Longview News-Journal. May 27, 2018.

We are pleased, finally, to see official action related to questionable voting practices that have been seen for years in Gregg County Pct. 4.

State Rep. Jay Dean, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt, District Attorney Carl Dorrough and Sheriff Maxey Cerliano on May 23 stood on the courthouse steps to announce a criminal investigation into the unusually high number of mail-in ballots cast in the recent Democratic primary for the Pct. 4 county commission seat.

We are pleased the troubling questions about voting in the precinct are receiving attention from the highest levels of county and state government, including the secretary of state and attorney general.

While the probe applies only to votes cast in the recent Gregg County commission primary, the officials made clear they understand the questionable balloting has been occurring for years. Many candidates are suspected of using the scheme - including in elections conducted since the county commission primary.

This investigation has been badly needed to determine if the many red flags this newspaper and others have noted with mail-in ballots represent criminal activity.

As we have pointed out previously, the quantity of mail-in ballots cast in the Pct. 4 county commission race amounted to more than twice those cast in other precincts combined, and nearly eight times more than the precinct with the next-highest total of such ballots.

Also raising questions is the high percentage of those cast by voters claiming a disability. In the primary being examined, 39 percent of voters did so. That compared with just 2.5 percent in other precincts in that election and 9 percent statewide.

Of course, it also raises suspicions when, as has been the case in most recent elections we have examined, the mail-in ballots favor a different candidate than was picked by voters using less easily manipulated forms of voting.

According to Dean, the practice has been occurring in Pct. 4 for decades. It is unfortunate it has taken so long for officials to mount such an investigation, but we are pleased they are drawing a line and pledging from the courthouse steps to get to the bottom of the mess.

We believe the practice has been allowed to go on for so long mainly because of apathy by voters and others outside the precinct who apparently believe it does not affect them.

That is wrong, of course.

Votes cast in Pct. 4 have an impact across the city and county. They have come into play in mayoral races, City Council races, county commission races, and, most recently, school board races. That means our county, city and biggest school district can be impacted by those who perhaps have resorted to dishonest practices to win election.

Let us be very clear: If the allegations are true, we have had candidates for decades buying votes in an attempt to buy elections. Those who engage in such practices and advocate for it, as we have heard some elected officials doing since the probe was announced, are not worthy to serve on any elected body.

Likewise, those who argue the probe, which aims only to determine that votes are being cast honestly, somehow amounts to voter suppression are engaging in a brazen disinformation campaign that does a disservice to all voters.

As Hughes said, the unusual results “scream for an investigation,” and, if what is feared truly has been occurring, “is too important for us to ignore.”

We agree and offer our sincere thanks to the individuals who now are stepping forward to aid investigators. We are confident many more will follow.

We fully support the probe and look forward to its conclusion to begin healing the black eye our county and city have received because of questions about our ability to conduct honest elections.

___

Fort Worth Star-Telegram. May 28, 2018.

The original message Colin Kaepernick was trying to send in September 2016, when he first knelt during the national anthem, has gotten lost.

So, maybe those who support the former 49ers quarterback and his protest against police brutality and racial inequality should consider how to get that message back on track. Try a new tactic with a real call-to-action.

What began as a player’s silent dissent has morphed into a loud debate, pitting the NFL and team owners against players and their supporters. Even President Trump, who likes a good “kerfuffle,” has weighed in, making it about patriotism, saying to players who take a knee, “Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”

The new NFL owners’ rule has only escalated the divide by threatening to penalize players and teams if they don’t stand during the national anthem, or stay in the locker room while it’s playing.

Yes, this is about free speech, and our country’s time-honored right to protest. That, too, is patriotism.

But it’s also about who’s in charge - Jerry Jones and team owners who employ the players and don’t want political protests to disrupt profits. Or the players - employees - who want to use their celebrity and what they believe to be their First Amendment rights to speak out about injustice.

We hate censorship. But the question of who is legally right about the new rule is murky.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law and a constitutional law expert told the Washington Post, First Amendment rights don’t apply to private institutions. “Private employers can fire employees for their speech without having to worry about the First Amendment,” he said.

In an article written for Vox, Benjamin Sachs, a labor professor at Harvard Law School, said it comes down to the players’ collective bargaining agreement with the NFL and whether the union should have been consulted.

“If, as the NFL Players Association says, the employer implemented this change on its own, the policy is flatly illegal for that reason and should be rescinded by the league,” Sachs writes.

The Players Association has said it will study the new policy to determine whether it violates its collective bargaining agreement with the NFL.

In the midst of the legal quandary, players who want to combat racial injustice by kneeling on the field are losing the PR battle. Members of the media may be in their corner, but their employers and a lot of fans no longer hear their message, if they ever did. Veterans in particular believe kneeling during the national anthem shows unforgivable disrespect.

Protesters will get more traction for their movement if it becomes one. If it expands to include the public and other high profile supporters. And if it has a tangible goal like changing a specific law or law enforcement practice. Where exactly do the NFL protesters want to go with this?

Think the #MeToo movement and its effort to identify and punish harassers. Or the Parkland students who’ve ignited a call across the country for greater gun control.

It’s time for this protest to evolve if it’s going to be effective. Tell us what you want. Take it beyond the field; get the fans in the stands and our communities involved; get policy makers’ attention.

If this is about ending racial injustice, make it a movement, or watch it fizzle.

___

San Antonio Express-News. May 29, 2018.

Now that the fire union’s three proposed city charter amendments have qualified for the November ballot, the hard work begins for community and business leaders to educate voters about their consequences.

This will have to be a million-dollar education campaign. Make no mistake, the proposed charter amendments would take a wrecking ball to city government.

They sound populist and democratic, but they would limit the city’s ability to attract top talent and undermine elected representation, giving immense leverage to outside groups just like the San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association, which, not coincidentally, has managed to put this on the ballot.

Turnout will likely be high for the November midterms, but many voters will probably be more educated about federal and statewide races, not arcane city charter changes. Adding to the challenge is the populist appeal of the changes. They sound good, but they are the policy equivalent to Scud missiles.

One proposal would lengthen the amount of time to collect signatures for referenda, and reduce the number of signatures needed from about 75,000 to 20,000. It would also allow for referenda over City Council decisions for taxes and utility rates.

While this has the appearance of giving the public more influence, it’s really about giving the union or another powerful outside entity more influence over council decisions. It would be very easy for the fire union to threaten City Council with a referendum over a budget decision as a way to extract concessions in, say, a contract dispute. And the fire union is very much in a contract dispute with the city.

Another proposal would cap the city manager’s salary to 10 times that of the lowest-paid full-time city employee. Again, this could sound appealing to many voters. After all, City Manager Sheryl Sculley’s compensation is a constant flash point in the community. But it’s a nonsensical and arbitrary proposal.

Compensation for the city’s top executive has nothing to do with compensation for the city’s lowest-paid employee. This proposal would also term-limit the city manager to eight years and require contracts to be approved by a supermajority of council.

This would significantly inhibit the city’s ability to attract talent. What dynamic executive - say someone who maintains a AAA bond rating, saving taxpayers millions every year - would work in San Antonio knowing his or her pay would be arbitrarily capped? Why would it be in the city’s best interest to arbitrarily term-limit a dynamic and capable leader? It makes no sense.

Besides, there is already plenty of accountability in the system. If City Council is unhappy with the city manager, it can fire that person. If the voters are unhappy with Council’s decisions, they can vote those people out of office.

It does happen.

Lastly, a third proposal would require the city to enter binding arbitration with the fire union over contract disputes. This would not remotely be in taxpayers’ interests.

These proposals are not the product of some altruistic desire for good governance. These proposals are the product of a prolonged contract dispute between the city and the fire union, which has never come to the table to negotiate with the city.

It’s worth noting, the San Antonio Police Officer’s Association negotiated a very favorable contract with the city that included a 3 percent lump sum bonus, a wage increase of 14 percent over four years and minor, but necessary, cost shifts on health care.

Should these proposals pass, they would be detrimental to the functioning of city government. For whatever reason, the fire union believes that will help its cause.

Voters need to soundly reject these proposals.

___

Houston Chronicle. May 29, 2018.

President Donald Trump recently hosted a White House event that, in an earlier era, would have been remarkable.

Surrounded by cabinet members, Trump stridently spoke out about serious problems in the criminal justice system. But instead of just spewing law and order bromides about getting tough on crime, this Republican president talked about the “tremendous struggle” faced by former inmates freed from prison after serving their sentences, about their problems finding “a steady job where they can pay taxes, contribute to their country, gain dignity and pride that comes with a career.” And he pressed Congress to send him legislation crafted to help criminals who’ve served their time to adjust to life in the free world.

At a time when politicians in both major parties seem to disagree on everything just for spite, there’s now bipartisan agreement on the necessity of prison reform. But a surprising number of reformers are opposing legislation winding its way around Capitol Hill because they believe it doesn’t go far enough. They’re right to press for a bolder bill, but they’re wrong to fight against sensible legislation both sides can agree upon.

At issue is a bill called the First Step Act of 2018. Among its many initiatives, the legislation would encourage federal inmates to participate in vocational and rehabilitation programs, which would receive an additional $50 million during the next five years. It would also institute some very specific changes advocated by reformers, like decreeing the federal prison system incarcerate inmates no more than 500 miles from their families.

But a good many prominent prison reform advocates are lobbying to kill the First Step Act, arguing that it doesn’t address the problem on the front end. Sentencing reform, they argue, must be a part of this plan. The opposition comes mostly from Democrats and civil rights groups. But even a number of prominent Republicans - like Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - argue that changing draconian sentencing rules for comparatively minor offenses is essential for a federal incarceration system that’s costing taxpayers more than $7 billion a year.

Longtime prison reform advocates can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. They should keep advocating for sentencing reform legislation, but also must support what are admittedly half-measures agreed upon by all sides on Capitol Hill.

Congress needs to pass the First Step Act of 2018. After all, this is only the first step.