Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Texas has poised to join Georgia as a Republican controls state,
Speaker 1: enacting sweeping changes and voting laws that voting rights advocates
Speaker 1: say amount to blatant voter suppression. Here are Texas Democratic
Speaker 1: Congressman Joaquin Castro and Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. The
Speaker 1: Republican Party in Texas is trying to bring back Jim
Speaker 1: Crow style voter suppression to this state. And you suggest
Speaker 1: that we're trying to suppress the vote, you're, in essence
Speaker 1: between the lines calling us racist, and that will not stand.
Speaker 1: Republicans can thank the Supreme Court for its Shelby County
Speaker 1: decision that created a glide path for many of the
Speaker 1: election changes they're pushing through this year. Joining me as
Speaker 1: elections law expert Rick Hassan, a professor at the University
Speaker 1: of California Irvine School of Law, there is a cascade
Speaker 1: of voting changes in republic Can controlled states. Which states
Speaker 1: bill stands out as the most restrictive and why I
Speaker 1: think it's a moving target. We're still waiting to see
Speaker 1: what legislation is going to pass in Texas and Texas
Speaker 1: had some pretty worrisome provisions that came out of the
Speaker 1: bill on the Senate side, somewhat different provisions on the
Speaker 1: House side, And we'll see what emerges before the end
Speaker 1: of the session. But you saw in Florida, in Georgia,
Speaker 1: in Arizona, in each of these states laws that make
Speaker 1: it somewhat harder for people to register and to vote.
Speaker 1: In addition, and what I think is probably more concerning
Speaker 1: than even things like saying you can't give voters water
Speaker 1: while they're waiting in line to vote, our provisions that
Speaker 1: might allow partisans to manipulate how the votes are actually
Speaker 1: going to be counted. So in Georgia, the secretary of State,
Speaker 1: who you may remember, Brad Raefinsburger, stood up to Trump
Speaker 1: and would not find or manufacture additional votes to try
Speaker 1: to flip the outcome to the secretary of state position
Speaker 1: has been taken out of a role on the state
Speaker 1: election board to be replaced by someone who's going to
Speaker 1: be appointed by the legislature. And this body now has
Speaker 1: the power to take over up to four county election
Speaker 1: boards at a time, and so it could be that
Speaker 1: we'll see the state election board looking to take over
Speaker 1: Democratic counties and mess with how the election is being
Speaker 1: conducted in those counties. So this is kind of a
Speaker 1: new problem that we haven't seen before, not just about
Speaker 1: making it harder to vote, but potentially subverting the outcome
Speaker 1: of the election itself. Could these build backfire and restrict
Speaker 1: Republican voters as well? Oh, I think there's no doubt
Speaker 1: that this is a real danger. And in fact, in Florida,
Speaker 1: which has very successfully used mail and balloting for many years,
Speaker 1: some Republican legislators are worried that's going to make it
Speaker 1: harder for reliable Republican voters to cast a ballot, even
Speaker 1: to the point where they were thinking of exempting the
Speaker 1: rules for military and elderly voters who are more likely
Speaker 1: to vote for Republicans. That didn't end up going that route,
Speaker 1: but it does show that there is concern about back fire.
Speaker 1: And so one is that it's going to make it
Speaker 1: harder for reliable Republicans to turn out to vote. And
Speaker 1: we saw the turnout was way up, for example, in Texas,
Speaker 1: and that helped Republicans, So higher turnout doesn't necessarily help Democrats.
Speaker 1: But the other thing that these laws do is that
Speaker 1: they energize the Democratic base and the Democratic Party seeing
Speaker 1: this as an effort at suppressing the vote, and that
Speaker 1: can actually spur a backlash which can actually increase turnout.
Speaker 1: So it's not clear what the actual effect is going
Speaker 1: to be on election results, but I think that shouldn't
Speaker 1: be where the main focus is. The main focus should
Speaker 1: be why does the state get to make it harder
Speaker 1: for people to register or to vote without having a
Speaker 1: good reason to do so. And the reason here seems
Speaker 1: to be simply to try to give one party partisan advantage.
Speaker 1: As far as the parts of these bills that go
Speaker 1: further than talking about how a person votes in that state,
Speaker 1: will those survive court challenges? So how things are going
Speaker 1: to go into court is uncertain. There are really three
Speaker 1: main lines of attack. One is an attack under Section
Speaker 1: two of the Voting Rights Act, the second is an
Speaker 1: attack under various constitutional provisions, including the Fourteen Amendments Equal
Speaker 1: Protection Clause, and the third are attacks under state constitutions.
Speaker 1: So let me talk about each of those separately. How
Speaker 1: much does Section two of the Voting Rights Act protect
Speaker 1: the laws that make it harder for fuel to register
Speaker 1: and vote? That is an open question that is before
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court right now in a case
Speaker 1: called Bernovich. This is a case coming out of Arizona
Speaker 1: where the Democratic Party challenged some rules that they said
Speaker 1: made it harder for voters to be able to cast
Speaker 1: their ballots, and the Supreme Court is going to for
Speaker 1: the first time wigh in on how section to the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act, which provides that minority voters should have
Speaker 1: the same opportunity as others to participate the political process
Speaker 1: and to let representatives of their choice. How Section two
Speaker 1: is going to apply in this context. We know how
Speaker 1: it applies in the contracts of redistricting. The courts decided
Speaker 1: lots of cases of that question. But the major issue
Speaker 1: in the Burnerage case that should be decided by the
Speaker 1: end of June, and that will tell us how well
Speaker 1: these new challenges will go under Section two. Terms of
Speaker 1: constitutional challenges under the Protection Clause and other provisions of
Speaker 1: the U. S Constitution. I think plaintiffs face an uphill
Speaker 1: battle because over the years the Supreme Court and lower
Speaker 1: courts have not been as accepting of these kinds of
Speaker 1: claims of constitutional violations. I think the really egregious laws
Speaker 1: could fall under US constitutional challenges, but it's going to
Speaker 1: be a tough road to challenge laws there, and it
Speaker 1: really shows you what's the loss of Section five of
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court eviscerated in
Speaker 1: the two thousand thirteen Shelby County Versus. Holder case really did.
Speaker 1: And then finally, challenges in state courts raising state constitutional claims.
Speaker 1: These could potentially be successful, especially in states like Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: and North Carolina, which have Democratic majority state Supreme courts
Speaker 1: which have been shown to be skeptical of some efforts
Speaker 1: to manipulate election results through restrictive voting laws. But there's
Speaker 1: a pen question about whether or not state courts have
Speaker 1: the power to reign in state legislatures when it comes
Speaker 1: to the rules for federal elections. That's an issue the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court duct in the election season, but will probably
Speaker 1: end up back at the Court. So, Texas and Georgia
Speaker 1: were states that were subject to the Voting Rights Acts
Speaker 1: requirement that jurisdictions get pre clearance from the Justice Department
Speaker 1: or a federal court before changing their voting rules. You
Speaker 1: reference the Supreme Court's decision in the Shelby County case.
Speaker 1: Just tell us briefly what that case did so. As
Speaker 1: you mentioned, there were a number of states that had
Speaker 1: a history of racial discrimination and voting that had to
Speaker 1: get federal approval before making changes to their voting rules,
Speaker 1: and they had to demonstrate that the changes would not
Speaker 1: make protected binary voters worse off. In nineteen sixty six,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upheld this preclearance provision as what the
Speaker 1: court called the strong medicine. It's tough to tell a
Speaker 1: state that they've got to get federal approval before they
Speaker 1: could put their laws in place, but the said it
Speaker 1: was justified by this long history of discrimination. By two
Speaker 1: thousand thirteen, however, the Supreme Court said that the law
Speaker 1: was no longer justified because it was based upon data
Speaker 1: about disparities in turnout and voting from the nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: and from nine seventy and so the Court didn't strike
Speaker 1: down the preclearance provision itself, but instead struck down the
Speaker 1: coverage formula of the formula that dictated which states were
Speaker 1: going to be subjects to these rules. And what's happened
Speaker 1: since then is that Congress has been considering different coverage formulas,
Speaker 1: and right now there's a bill pending in the House.
Speaker 1: It's called Hr. Four. It's the John Lewis Voting Rights Act,
Speaker 1: and it would impose a new requirement of preclearance under
Speaker 1: a new formula, with the hope that this would pass
Speaker 1: constitutional muster if it were put in place. And Joe Mansion,
Speaker 1: who is a centator from West Virginia, is the Democrat
Speaker 1: who is very important because he's kind of a fiftieth
Speaker 1: vote to try to get a voting bill through the Senate,
Speaker 1: and he has said that he would favor moving preclearance
Speaker 1: to a nationwide standard. That is, rather than single out
Speaker 1: particular state, you would have every state be subject to
Speaker 1: these kinds of rules. I think that would solve one
Speaker 1: of the issues raised in Shelby County, which is treating
Speaker 1: some states differently than others. But it does still raise
Speaker 1: the question of whether or not Congress would have the
Speaker 1: power to make states go through this kind of process.
Speaker 1: So a lot up in the air. It's not clear
Speaker 1: if legislation will pass that would try to reverse Shelby County,
Speaker 1: and it's not clear that if that legislation passed that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court would be willing to uphold it. How
Speaker 1: does the fact that the Court is more conservative now
Speaker 1: six conservative members and In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts
Speaker 1: wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County. How does that
Speaker 1: play in? We do know that this court is full
Speaker 1: of conservative justices who are skeptical of race based solutions generally,
Speaker 1: so it's not clear if a renewed Section five of
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act would pass constitutional muster for this
Speaker 1: conservative court. But listening to the oral arguments the Bernovich case,
Speaker 1: that Section two case, it did sound like a number
Speaker 1: of the conservative justices were willing to read the Voting
Speaker 1: Rights Act as providing some protection for minority voters. There
Speaker 1: wasn't really any suggestion that this was somehow unconstitutional or
Speaker 1: needed to be reined in. So we'll see That opinion
Speaker 1: won't be out for probably another month and a half,
Speaker 1: but it's probably the most important voting rights decision that
Speaker 1: we're going to get in a number of years, and
Speaker 1: it is going to be a major indication of how
Speaker 1: conservative this court is and whether the six conservative justices
Speaker 1: on the Court really Martian lockstep or whether there is
Speaker 1: some daylight between them on questions and voting rights. Chief
Speaker 1: Justice John Roberts also, i believe, wrote the majority opinion
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court decision that judges can't toss voting
Speaker 1: maps for being two partisan. How important was that decision?
Speaker 1: So this is the Routo decision, and that's a very
Speaker 1: important decision as we're entering into the new period of redistricting.
Speaker 1: So registering happens every ten years after the census for
Speaker 1: the only twenty two elections, we will have new lines
Speaker 1: being drawn. We just had a new apportionment where I
Speaker 1: live in California, we just lost one seat. Some other
Speaker 1: states have gained a seed or two. And after the
Speaker 1: lines are drawn, they're often challenges that the lines are
Speaker 1: unconstitutional as they violate various provisions of state law or
Speaker 1: violate the Voting Rights Act. One argument that had been
Speaker 1: floating out there for some time is that when you
Speaker 1: draw these district lines, you do so to favor one
Speaker 1: party and hurt the other party, so called partisan jerry
Speaker 1: managering that this violates the Constitution. And the issue had
Speaker 1: been uncertain for many years because Justice Kennedy, who was
Speaker 1: the key swing vote on this question, kept it open
Speaker 1: and still wanted to hear different kinds of challenges to
Speaker 1: figure out, you know, when registering goes too far as
Speaker 1: to violate the Constitution However, it's an afterco just Okay
Speaker 1: left the court. The Supreme Court in the rut O
Speaker 1: case said that federal courts are not open to hearing
Speaker 1: claims of partisan jerry mandering. To be going into the
Speaker 1: new round of registering with two major legal changes since
Speaker 1: the last round. Number one is no partisan gerry mandering
Speaker 1: claims will be viable, So that's not something that those
Speaker 1: who want to engage in parisngerymannjuring me to worry about.
Speaker 1: And number two will be the first redistricing round since
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies in which the Justice Department will not
Speaker 1: be preclearing maps that were drawn in those jurisdictions that
Speaker 1: had a history of racial discrimination of voting. So going
Speaker 1: to be a lot of political battles. Not clear how
Speaker 1: much the courts are going to get involved. Maybe state
Speaker 1: courts will get involved more. But it's a very different
Speaker 1: atmosphere than it was in the last decade when these
Speaker 1: cases emerged after the last round of prediscing. Has there
Speaker 1: been a time in our history since the Jim Crow
Speaker 1: era where so many states were moving to restrict voting rights. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that as soon as the Supreme Court decided
Speaker 1: the Shelby County case. You saw immediate action by North
Speaker 1: Carolina and Texas to try to impose or apply strict
Speaker 1: voting rules. Uh, it's really accelerated now following the election
Speaker 1: after Donald Trum repeated false claims at the election was
Speaker 1: stolen in part as a reaction to that. A number
Speaker 1: of states have passed restrict of voting rules. They're doing
Speaker 1: so in an atmosphere where the courts are less protective
Speaker 1: of voting rights, and so I do think that voting
Speaker 1: rights are under assault now in a way that they
Speaker 1: haven't been in a number of decades. Thanks Rick. That's
Speaker 1: Rick Hassant of the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
Speaker 1: It didn't take long for the jury and the trial
Speaker 1: of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to reach a verdict.
Speaker 1: According to juror Brandon Mitchell, we probably deliberated for four hours,
Speaker 1: and of that four hours it was it was I
Speaker 1: guess we were going over more sol the terminology, oh,
Speaker 1: that was being used to make sure that we understood
Speaker 1: exactly what was being asked. And now another jury, a
Speaker 1: federal jury, will be asked to decide what happened that
Speaker 1: day in May when Chauvin pinned George Floyd down to
Speaker 1: the ground with a knee on his neck. The Justice
Speaker 1: Department has indicted Chauvin and the three other former officers
Speaker 1: on federal civil rights charges were wilfully violating Floyd's constitutional rights.
Speaker 1: Joining me as Jonathan Smith, executive director of the Washington
Speaker 1: Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. Derek Chauvin
Speaker 1: was convicted of murder. The three other former officers haven't
Speaker 1: even been tried yet. Aren't Federal charges usually brought after
Speaker 1: state charges fail, like in the Rodney King case, so
Speaker 1: it is unusual for the federal government to bring civil
Speaker 1: rights violations charges while the state cases still pending. The
Speaker 1: federal charge is a much broader criminal statute that addresses
Speaker 1: when someone who's acting on color state law a state
Speaker 1: official willfully violates someone civil rights. It dates back to
Speaker 1: the Civil War, literally the Reconstruction era, and it's the
Speaker 1: only sadget that the United States can use to charge
Speaker 1: in these cases. Typically, the United States will come in
Speaker 1: and bring those charges only under the circumstances in which
Speaker 1: there has been some decision by the United States that
Speaker 1: the state criminal proceeding was inadequate to serve justice, and
Speaker 1: that's in the United States Attorney's Manual, which is the
Speaker 1: directions to the United's attorney from the Attorney General about
Speaker 1: when they should charge. And so the fact that they
Speaker 1: brought charges here before the state proceedings had concluded is
Speaker 1: unusual and does reflect the seriousness which the United States
Speaker 1: is taking this particular the case. What does the prosecution
Speaker 1: have to prove here? Is it a high burden. So
Speaker 1: the federal crime to which these officers have been charged
Speaker 1: requires of the United States show that these officers willfully
Speaker 1: violated George Floyd's civil rights. And the willfulness standard is
Speaker 1: the highest standard in our criminal law. It's the same
Speaker 1: standard as you would apply for intentional murder or another
Speaker 1: intent crime. It doesn't mean that they still have to
Speaker 1: show that they intended to kill George Floyd, but they
Speaker 1: do have to show that they intended to commit the
Speaker 1: acts that they knew to be in violation of his
Speaker 1: civil rights, that they intended to restrain him illegally, that
Speaker 1: they intended to restrain him in violation of Fourth Amendment
Speaker 1: to the United Constitution and the rules around use of force.
Speaker 1: And that is a very difficult standard to make. It's
Speaker 1: much different than the kinds of crimes that were charged
Speaker 1: in the state case. I mean, the state did charge
Speaker 1: a crime which required the show even attempt, but it
Speaker 1: also charged the crime with a much lower intense standard
Speaker 1: of recklessness or negligence. And there is no crime available
Speaker 1: under the United States Code that is at a recklessness
Speaker 1: or a negligence standard. The only crime that's availably United
Speaker 1: States Code is to show this intent to commit a
Speaker 1: civil rights violation. And so it's a very difficult case
Speaker 1: to prove. The United States must feel very confident it
Speaker 1: could prove the case because they charged so rarely and
Speaker 1: only under circumstances where the evidence is extremely clear. You know,
Speaker 1: clearly the United States had begun its investigation well before
Speaker 1: the trial of Dark Children. The grand jury had been
Speaker 1: sitting for some time, the FBI had been engaged in
Speaker 1: its investigation. You know, will certainly wait and see whether
Speaker 1: there was any new evidence developed by the United States
Speaker 1: that and presented by the State. Well, let me ask
Speaker 1: your opinion. Do you think that it's fair to try
Speaker 1: a person for the same crime in two different jurisdictions
Speaker 1: just to pile on years to the prison term. I mean,
Speaker 1: is it fair our Constitution says that you cannot be
Speaker 1: exposed to double jeopardy, and that really means that you
Speaker 1: can't be charged and tried for the same conduct twice
Speaker 1: that the state gets one shot at you. Distreme Court
Speaker 1: has said that the United States and the State are
Speaker 1: different sovereigns and that the double jeopardy provision only applies
Speaker 1: to each of the sovereigns independently and has permitted the
Speaker 1: United States to bring charges for course of conduct that
Speaker 1: may have been resolved in the state court proceeding that
Speaker 1: can create an injustice, that can create an injustice by
Speaker 1: you know, punishing somebody twice and severely for the same conduct.
Speaker 1: And so in order to address that, that is why
Speaker 1: typically the United States, before will bring charges, will take
Speaker 1: into account the question of whether the state proceeding provided
Speaker 1: adequate justice for the conduct. And that is why the
Speaker 1: United States having charged before ther Choven has even been
Speaker 1: sentenced and the other officers have ever been tried, is
Speaker 1: so unusual because the United States will typically allow the
Speaker 1: state to go forward with its case first and then
Speaker 1: evaluate whether the state court proceding provided adequate justice before
Speaker 1: it will bring those charges. And so this is unusual.
Speaker 1: The United States who have moved in before it can
Speaker 1: even answer that question. Really is sending a signal that
Speaker 1: the United States is going to be more engaged around
Speaker 1: these cases and that it's going to use those statutes
Speaker 1: in a more robust way. And prior administrations may have
Speaker 1: What can the officers argue in their defense? So there
Speaker 1: are three elements to the statute that the United States
Speaker 1: has to prove. The first is that the officers erecting
Speaker 1: in their color of law, which means they're acting in
Speaker 1: an official capacity with the authority of the state. UM,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a very little contest that they were
Speaker 1: acting as police officers at the time. UM, They'll uh
Speaker 1: the United States just to prove that it was a
Speaker 1: violation of UM. Mr Floyd's civil rights. And I think
Speaker 1: that restraining somebody to the point in which they died
Speaker 1: is going to be very difficult for the officers to
Speaker 1: argue that, UM, Mr john civil rights, we're not. Mr
Speaker 1: floyd civil rights are not violated and UM. But the
Speaker 1: third element is the one of intent. Did they set
Speaker 1: out to commit an act knowing that it was a
Speaker 1: violation of George floyd civil rights? That's where I think
Speaker 1: that if there's a trial in this case. That's where
Speaker 1: I think the trial was going to focus. What was
Speaker 1: in the minds of the officers at the time that
Speaker 1: they committed these act? Did they intend to commit an
Speaker 1: act that they knew to be in violation of the
Speaker 1: United States Constitute? So how will prosecutors prove intent if
Speaker 1: the officers don't take the stand. Well, you saw a
Speaker 1: lot of that evidence come out in the trial. Um,
Speaker 1: you can show intent through all kinds of circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1: What what was the officers training, What did they know
Speaker 1: about the policy? What was their prior behavior and conduct
Speaker 1: that would indicate that they knew that their conduct was
Speaker 1: violating the civil rights? You know, was there use of
Speaker 1: force proportionate to the crime or the resistance that they
Speaker 1: were receiving from Mr Floyd at the time. There's a
Speaker 1: lot you can bring in that allow you to understand
Speaker 1: what the officers, you know, we're thinking at the time
Speaker 1: you saw this, you know, looking at the incident, you know,
Speaker 1: the severity of the crimes for which Mr. Floyd was
Speaker 1: suspected of having committed, the nature of the use of force,
Speaker 1: the persistence of the use of force in the face
Speaker 1: of what was being said to them by people in
Speaker 1: the crowd of you know, his physical condition as it deteriorated.
Speaker 1: All of that can be brought in to show that
Speaker 1: the officers knew that what they were doing UM may
Speaker 1: well have been a b relation of his right under
Speaker 1: the Constitution. You know, police officers are trained to know,
Speaker 1: are supposed to be trained in what the law is
Speaker 1: around when they can and can't use force, and they're
Speaker 1: supposed to be trained to know that that force has
Speaker 1: to be reasonable and that it can't be used in
Speaker 1: the kind of excessive, dangerous ways. And bringing in some
Speaker 1: of the same evidence that the state brought in UM
Speaker 1: will be very important to proving their intent. The Justice
Speaker 1: Department is also starting again with pattern and practice investigations,
Speaker 1: announcing civil investigations into the Minneapolis and Louisville police departments.
Speaker 1: Are they necessary? I think they're necessary and their important.
Speaker 1: When I was at the Department of Justice, I led
Speaker 1: the section that did the pattern and practice investigations for
Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Division of Law Enforcement during the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: The statute that they're enforcing, which allows the Attorney General
Speaker 1: proddress patterns and practices of the violation of the Constitution
Speaker 1: Federal law by law enforcement was enacted in the wake
Speaker 1: of the rebellions in Los Angeles after the beating of
Speaker 1: Rodney King as a way to give the federal government
Speaker 1: some ability to influence and to address unconstitutional practices by
Speaker 1: local law enforcement agencies. That statute has been enforced about
Speaker 1: seventy five times since was enacted. About twenty five of
Speaker 1: those cases were brought during the Obama administration. There was
Speaker 1: only one such investigation in case that was brought during
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. What we're seeing with the announcements in
Speaker 1: Louisville and in Minneapolis is that the Department Justice is
Speaker 1: going to be bringing more of those cases. I think
Speaker 1: that is a bell weather from an indicator that United
Speaker 1: State is going to be back pursuing these cases of
Speaker 1: regarding patterns of violations constitutions by law enforcement across the nation.
Speaker 1: One thing about those cases that is really very different
Speaker 1: than the criminal cases is they're not about trying to
Speaker 1: hold people accountable. That's not the goal. The criminal statute
Speaker 1: is designed if somebody engaged to misconduct of honey, then
Speaker 1: hold them accountable from this conduct. The pattern of practice
Speaker 1: investigations are designed to try to identify whether or not
Speaker 1: there is a course of conduct by that law enforcement
Speaker 1: agency that is routinely depriving people of their civil rights,
Speaker 1: and then to come up with a forward looking remedy.
Speaker 1: How can you fix that problem through policy, training, supervision, accountability,
Speaker 1: changes in practices that may limit the circumstances which forces used,
Speaker 1: or encounters between police and persons with nellowness, or traffic
Speaker 1: stops that are racily motivated, or whatever it might be.
Speaker 1: So it's really a very forward looking exercise. It's not
Speaker 1: to punish the city or the police department. It's not
Speaker 1: to find fault. It's really to say, if there's a
Speaker 1: problem here, how do we fix it? What can we
Speaker 1: do going forward that would be different, that will provide
Speaker 1: communities with police departments that deliver police services in a
Speaker 1: constitutional way. And has it worked in the past. There's
Speaker 1: been a tremendous success with the VATA and past practice investigations.
Speaker 1: Now important to note that the jurisdiction of the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the Civil Rights Division is actually quite limited
Speaker 1: in this area. It is to make police departments constitutional.
Speaker 1: That is a really, really, really important thing, but it
Speaker 1: is not everything that communities want. You can have a
Speaker 1: constitutional police department that doesn't reflect or meet the values
Speaker 1: of a community, and doesn't deliver police services in the
Speaker 1: way that the community desires and wishes or even deserves.
Speaker 1: But it is really important if you look around the
Speaker 1: country at where these investigations have led to consent decrees
Speaker 1: and those consent decrees have been implemented, you've seen very
Speaker 1: significant transformation and change. Thanks Jonathan. That's Jonathan Smith of
Speaker 1: the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg