Arguably the most prominent debate about inequality in the justice system has been the killing of black men by police officers who are often white. Aided by the ubiquity of smartphones used to document these shootings and the growing prominence of movements like Black Lives Matter, the issue has been thrust into the spotlight in recent years. But despite a glaring lack of data, the issue had likely been a problem long before it received so much public attention. While police shootings have rightly become an issue, racial disparities persist in areas of the justice system that often go unnoticed. A notable example of this is justifiable homicides.

In a new analysis from The Marshall Project, researchers found that both the race of the victim and killer are associated with large differences in the rate at which killings are ruled justified. “When a white person kills a black man in America, the killer often faces no legal consequences,” write authors Anna Flag and Daniel Lathrop. They found that although about 2 percent of all homicides committed by civilians were ruled justifiable between 1980 and 2014, 17 percent of homicides involving a white person killing a black man were deemed justifiable homicides. That rate stands out when you compare it to other circumstances; the authors find:

In comparison, when Hispanics killed black men, about 5.5 percent of cases were called justifiable. When whites killed Hispanics, it was 3.1 percent. When blacks killed whites, the figure was just 0.8 percent. When black males were killed by other blacks, the figure was about 2 percent, the same as the overall rate.

It is important to note that in most homicides, the killer and the victim are the same race, and few involve people who are strangers. But although this research covers a fairly small percentage of all homicides, the scale of the racial differences are quite notable.

The analysis, which used data for more than 400,000 homicides between 1980 and 2014, provides a detailed picture of when killings are ruled justified. While the FBI collects data for several different violent and property crimes, it offers expanded data for homicides allowing for several additional layers of analysis. The expanded data includes details about the victim and killer–including age, race, ethnicity, and sex–as well as the circumstances of the crime, like whether a weapon was involved and how the police classified the incident.

There are large racial disparities in the overall number of justifiable homicides, and those differences persist when you filter the data down to a variety of circumstances. Regardless of the relationship of the victim and the killer, differences in age, whether a weapon was used, or the police department reporting the incident, the disparities persist. Flag and Lathrop note,

Even after adjusting for the ages of the killer and victim, their relationship and the weapon used, the likelihood of a white-on-black-male case being called justifiable was still 4.7 times higher than in other cases.

U.S. law generally grants people the right to use lethal force when they fear their lives or the lives of others are in danger, while the specific details of self-defense laws are left up to the states. Much of the research on justifiable homicides has focused on what are known as Stand Your Ground laws, which typically expand a person’s right to use lethal force to a wider range of circumstances. These laws became particularly controversial in 2012 when George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager. In fact, the police decided against arresting Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting because he claimed that he acted in self-defense, which is likely a result of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

A study published earlier this week in JAMA Internal Medicine found that both justifiable homicides and the total number of murders increased significantly after Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law in 2005. According to the researchers, the total increase in murders–up about 22 percent in the 10 years since the law was passed–exceeded what is attributable to the increase in justifiable homicides alone. The authors note that in the six years before the state enacted its Stand Your Ground Law, justifiable homicides accounted for 3.4 percent of all homicides. That percentage increased to 8.7 percent between 2006 and 2015, a 75 percent increase.

Another study of justifiable homicides from 2013, which focused on the consequences of state Stand Your Ground laws, found racial disparities that are similar to those found by the Marshall Project. In his analysis of the FBI’s expanded homicide data, John Roman at the Urban Institute concluded that not only are there are large racial differences in justifiable homicide rulings, but Stand Your Ground laws actually increase those disparities.

There are important limitations in the FBI data that prevent broad conclusions about the potential role of racial prejudice in these findings, however. One notable example is that while the FBI collects a lot of supplemental information about these homicides, police departments do not provide data on the location of the incidents. If the location–an important piece of the context in self defense claims–is systematically different in cases where a white person kills a black man, the disparity could be attributed to that. Put another way, the facts of a homicide that occurred in someone’s home may be quite different from one that occurred on the street. Because we cannot know all of these crucial details about each case, we can’t conclude that racial bias, either on the part of the police or a jury, is responsible for the difference. Additionally, there can be notable gaps in the available data because it is voluntarily reported by the police and does not always reflect the final result of a case. The authors note that while a jury ultimately acquitted George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, Martin’s death was classified as “other” in FBI data rather than as a justifiable homicide.

While we cannot know for sure whether prejudice is responsible for the racial discrepancies, there are a number of ways that such bias could come into play. From prosecutorial discretion over whether a case even goes to trial, to the inherent subjectivity involved in determining whether a person is in danger, overt and implicit bias certainly could play a role in these rulings.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Research Finds Justifiable Homicide Rulings More Likely to Benefit White Americans appeared first on Law Street.

In 2015, the United States spent a staggering $3.2 trillion on health care, or nearly $10,000 per capita–amounting to 17.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Health care is one of the most expensive components of the federal budget, and health spending comes in a variety of different forms, including major public programs, direct subsidies, and a number of different provisions in the tax code.

While big insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid tend to be the focus of most health care discussions, and account for most of the spending, the government provides and subsidizes health care in ways that many might not realize. Given the rising prominence of the health care industry in our budget and in our economy, it’s important to look at the current role played by the federal government. Read on to see how the government provides and incentivizes health insurance coverage and how much these efforts cost.

Government Health Care Programs

Two government programs account for a large portion of health care spending, and federal spending in general. Medicare and Medicaid are two entitlement programs that together account for roughly 25 percent of the federal budget. In 2016, the U.S. government spent a net total of $588 billion on Medicare, the health insurance program covering all Americans over the age of 65. Federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health insurance to people with disabilities, the elderly, children, and people with low incomes, totaled $368 billion last year. Because Medicaid is a federal-state partnership, states also account for a notable portion of health care spending. In 2016, federal funding covered about 63 percent of all Medicaid spending, excluding administrative costs. The remaining 37 percent, or about $204.5 billion, was held by the states.

It’s worth noting that along with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the largest mandatory spending programs–spending that is built into existing laws and is not subject to annual appropriation bills. Forecasts predict that these programs will grow as a share of the federal budget in the coming years as the Baby Boomer generation retires. In its most recent forecast, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts, “outlays for mandatory programs increase as a share of GDP by 2.4 percentage points from 2017 to 2027–mainly because of the aging of the population and rising per capita health care costs. Social Security and Medicare account for nearly all of that increase.” Last year, Social Security amounted to 4.9 percent of U.S. GDP and spending on major health programs amounted to 5.4 percent of GDP.

In addition to Medicaid and Medicare, the government provides subsidies for people with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level and who do not get health insurance through their employer. According to the CBO, the government spent $42 billion in 2016 on subsidies and other costs related to the individual insurance market.

The video below from the Brookings Institution gives an overview of health care spending trends over the past several decades:

The Tax Code

While the various provisions of the tax code that encourage individuals and companies to buy health insurance might not sound all that interesting, tax policy is a crucial part of the current health care system, and accounts for a significant amount of spending, or more precisely, foregone revenue.

Employer-provided Insurance

The government uses the tax code to encourage and discourage a wide range of behaviors. To encourage individuals and businesses to do certain things, the government uses tax expenditures, more commonly known as tax breaks. These provisions in the tax code forego tax revenue when people or businesses engage in certain activities. The largest of the existing tax expenditures deals with health care spending by employers. Specifically, the tax code excludes all spending toward employees’ health care premiums from taxation. This exclusion encourages employers to provide certain benefits to their employees because they can use pre-tax dollars to do so–if the same amount of money was given to employees in the form of traditional wages, it would be taxed. The exclusion is projected to cost about $260 billion in 2017, based on what the government would otherwise receive in payroll and income taxes. That annual cost makes the health care exclusion the third largest health care program, following Medicaid and Medicare.

The tax exclusion of employer provided health care dates back to World War II and emerged almost accidentally. In an effort to control inflation, the federal government froze wages, which prevented companies from paying their employees more. Instead, employers took advantage of an exception that applied to certain benefits–they started providing health insurance plans. Then in 1954, the IRS determined that payments toward employee health insurance are exempt from taxation. Over time, employer-subsidized health care became quite common, and today, most Americans get health care from their employer or a close family member’s employer.

While the tax exempt status of employer-provided health care has become particularly popular and politically durable–efforts to eliminate or even cap the tax benefits have not gotten very far–many economists believe that it has a distortionary effect on the health care system as a whole. The most frequent criticism of employer-subsidized health care is that it can spur growth in medical costs. Because premium payments are excluded from taxation, employers are incentivized to offer very generous health insurance plans instead of simply paying their employees higher wages. Economists argue that if more of the cost burden was placed on consumers when they use medical services, they would try to reduce those costs by searching for lower prices and avoiding unnecessary care. But when most of the cost of health care is masked by generous insurance plans, there is little incentive for individuals to cut costs.

Other criticisms of employer-subsidized health care focus on concerns about equity and progressivity. People with high incomes are more likely than those with lower incomes to benefit from health-related tax expenditures, of which employer-subsidized health care is by far the largest in value. Moreover, the nature of the tax exclusion makes it more valuable to people with high-incomes than those lower on the income scale. Because income tax is progressive–those with higher incomes pay higher tax rates–pre-tax money spent on health care is worth more to those with higher incomes because it would otherwise be taxed at a high rate. In 2015, about 45 percent of all benefits from health tax expenditures went to individuals with incomes in the top 20 percent, while just 0.5 percent of all benefits went to those in the bottom 20 percent.

Efforts to eliminate or curtail the tax preference for employer-sponsored health care date back to Reagan’s presidency, but few have made any notable progress. One notable exception is what’s known as the “Cadillac tax,” which was a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The Cadillac tax, formally known as the high-cost plan tax, sought to rein in health care cost growth by discouraging employers from providing extremely generous health insurance plans. Health insurance premiums payments in excess of $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families will face a 40 percent excise tax. The tax was originally scheduled to take effect in  2018 but was pushed back to 2020 after widespread opposition in 2015. Both businesses and unions strongly protested the tax, which may be one issue that both Republicans and Democrats can agree on. While it is still scheduled to go into effect in a couple years, questions about its fate loom as recent health care legislation would push its implementation back even further.

Conclusion

Peter Fisher, a former under secretary at the Treasury Department, once famously advised, “Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company […] with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security.” When you look at the federal budget, you can see that Fisher’s comments are rooted in an important truth–health insurance is one of the most expensive aspects of the federal budget.

The government plays a large, if sometimes unnoticed, role in the American health care system. From major programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which together add up to roughly one-quarter of the entire budget, to tax provisions that encourage employers to provide insurance to their workers, the government has a hand in nearly everyone’s insurance. Rising health care costs have led to notable budgetary issues in the long term, particularly as the American population ages, which have led some to argue that entire programs need to be revamped to keep spending sustainable. While many agree that health care spending has gotten unusually high in recent years, actually controlling costs has proven challenging.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Does the Government Spend on Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

The European Union’s antitrust regulators recently levied a 2.4 billion Euro fine on Google for favoring its own shopping service while demoting competitors in online search results. The fine, which amounts to about $2.7 billion, is the largest antitrust penalty in E.U. history and reflects a more aggressive trend in European antitrust enforcement. While the decision will certainly have important consequences for Google, it also illustrates how regulators are increasingly concerned with the rise of large technology companies and how they may affect competition and innovation.

Europe’s approach is also decidedly different than the one taken in the United States, which has generally allowed businesses to experiment with new business strategies unless such practices harm consumers. But when it comes to the internet, particularly free services like Google, drawing a line at the point where behavior becomes competitive has been difficult. Read on for a look at the details of Google’s case, the arguments on both sides, and its implications for the larger debate about antitrust law.

What Did Google Do?

When searching for a product on Google, you’ve likely noticed a bar at the top of the search results with pictures and links to places where you can buy the product underneath a link to use Google’s shopping service. Margrethe Vestager, the Competition Commissioner on the European Commission, looked into Google’s practices and concluded in June that the company was promoting its shopping service in a way that violates the law. The case started back in 2015, but Vestager says that Google’s anti-competitive behavior dates back as early as 2008. Vestager says that by promoting its own services to the top of search results, while demoting other comparison shopping websites, Google used its market dominance to hurt its competitors in violation of European law.

When announcing the decision, Vestager made note of Google’s important innovations but said that the promotion of Google Shopping didn’t just seek to improve the service it provided to customers, rather it harmed the overall market. She said in a statement,

Google’s strategy for its comparison shopping service wasn’t just about attracting customers by making its product better than those of its rivals. Instead, Google abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors. What Google has done is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation.

At the core of the E.U.’s case is its finding that Google has a particularly large share of the market, more than 90 percent in most European countries, and that it has used that market share to reduce the visibility–and as a result, the ability to compete–of its competitors, which Vestager says are alternative comparison shopping sites that function like Google Shopping.

Regulators found that search rankings have profound importance on the attention that a website gets. The vast majority of all clicks go to results on the first page, and the comparison shopping sites that the EU considers to be Google Shopping’s competitors are ranked much further down. In her statement, Vestager notes, “The evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results. Others appear even further down.” While the full details of the European Commission’s report will be released after it reviews it with Google to avoid disclosing any trade secrets, the summarized findings provide a clear look at where the case is going.

Google’s Argument

In a blog post after Vestager’s announcement, Kent Walker, a Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Google, challenged the notion that its practices are anticompetitive. Walker argued that people tend to prefer direct links to products when searching with Google and that the E.U. undervalued the service it provides its users. Walker also argues that the comparison shopping sites that Vestager is most concerned about are not actually Google’s direct competitors, rather major shopping platforms like Amazon and Ebay are a more appropriate comparison–and those sites tend to appear at the top of the first page of results. The company also touts the innovation that was involved in creating and adapting the shopping service, arguing that it creates a better experience for its customers.

Beyond Google, there is also a group that argues that the European Commission may be doing more than just enforcing competition laws by targeting Google. Namely, they note that many of the companies that face E.U. skepticism are located in the United States, and that what Vestager is doing may amount to a form of protectionism. Even President Obama argued that European antitrust regulations have gone too far in that they protect European companies from U.S. competition.

The video below describes the charges against Google in more detail:

What’s next?

Now that the European Commission has made its ruling, Google has 90 days to respond or it could face a fine of up to 5 percent of the average daily revenue of Alphabet, its parent company. In Europe, it’s the company’s responsibility to come up with a plan to ensure it is complying with the law, not the regulator. If Google is unable to get the commission to reverse its decision, it will likely need to change how it provides product-related search results in Europe. There are two additional probes–into Google’s Android operating system and its AdSense advertising platform–that remain ongoing and Vestager indicated that the recent findings will provide a model for those pending cases.

A New Approach to Antitrust

Beyond the facts of the recent decision, efforts by E.U. competition regulators indicate a broader change to antitrust enforcement–one that is notably different from the approach taken in the United States. In fact, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission actually considered pressing a case against Google for similar behavior several years ago, but decided further action was not necessary. What was particularly striking about that decision was the fact that an unreleased report indicated that FTC staffers thought there was enough evidence to bring a case against the company, but people at the top of the agency decided against it.

The new framework put forth by European regulators–which focuses on the importance of market power and competition, and how they can impact innovation in the longer term–looks a lot like the one that has been rising in popularity among Democrats in the United States. Addressing rising concentration and corporate power is one of the most important components of the new thinking in antitrust law. Proponents of aggressive antitrust enforcement argue that a proactive approach will help ensure that large tech companies like Google and Facebook do not use their market share to harm competition and stifle innovation. While the modern U.S. approach to antitrust, which generally dates back to the 1970s, tends to place a lot of focus on how concentration affects consumers. U.S. regulators have been reluctant to intervene absent clear proof that monopolistic behavior is directly harming consumers, typically in the form of price changes. But the thinking on the left argues that the health of the market, and innovation that comes along with it, can be harmed by concentration without direct consequences for consumers. Whether antitrust regulation should focus primarily on competition rather than benefits to consumers remains open for discussion, but Europe is pushing ahead with an aggressive enforcement as the debate in the U.S. unfolds.

Conclusion

The European Commission’s decision to fine Google a record-breaking 2.4 billion Euros is a sign of the new direction that the European Union is taking when it comes to regulating competition. As large internet platform companies become the focus of intense debates about market power and concentration, there has been a growing debate over whether existing laws and regulatory frameworks are sufficient to protect the health of the market and the welfare of consumers in the long term.

While political parties in the United States are divided on antitrust enforcement, Europe seems to be forging a new approach to deal with the large internet companies that have become integral components of daily life. For Google, and companies that find themselves in similar positions, this will likely create some problems when doing business in Europe, as the E.U. regulators have indicated that the recent decision will be an important precedent for future cases.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The EU’s Record Fine Against Google: A New Precedent for Antitrust Enforcement? appeared first on Law Street.

As the national debate over health policy unfolds, it can be helpful to take a wider look at the health insurance landscape in the United States to understand how proposed changes would affect the system as a whole. A number of different ideas have been floated to restructure parts of the health care system, but looking at the system overall helps offer some important context to the current debate.  For example, when lawmakers propose reducing spending on Medicaid or changing the subsidies for the individual market, knowing how many people would see their finances change can put things in perspective. Read on to see where people get their health insurance and who remains uninsured.

Health Insurance Coverage in the United States

In the United States, people get insurance through a mix of government programs and private companies. Most Americans have private health insurance, the largest portion of which is provided through an individual’s employer, or their family member’s employer. Government programs provide insurance to about 35 percent of the population. Two government programs account for the vast majority of all people on public insurance, namely Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is available to all adults over the age of 65 and is intended to provide insurance coverage for people as they age. Medicaid covers a more diverse group, including people with disabilities, the elderly, children, and the poor.

The chart below uses estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation using 2015 data from the Census Bureau (note that the numbers are rounded and therefore add up to just over 100 percent).

As the chart shows, employer-provided insurance is the single largest source of insurance for most Americans, which is important to keep in mind when debating health policy changes. Private health insurance companies sell insurance to businesses in what’s known as the group market, while those who are not able to get insurance through their employer and do not qualify for public insurance can buy it on the individual market.

Much of the debate over health insurance regulation tends to deal with coverage sold through exchanges on the individual market, which actually apply to a relatively small portion of the entire population. About 7 percent, or 21.8 million people, buy individual health insurance for themselves and their family members–which includes people who buy insurance directly from insurance companies on and outside of public exchanges. Approximately 12.2 million people enrolled in a plan sold on one of the regulated exchanges at the beginning of 2017. Those insurance plans are the ones that are affected by the vast majority of the regulations that have become the focus of many policy debates. Notable examples of these regulations include rules that prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions and ones that prevent or limit the the extent to which insurance companies can charge people more based on characteristics like health status or age.

One important exception is the Affordable Care Act’s ban on annual and lifetime limits, which prevent insurance companies from cutting off coverage after spending a certain amount. These limits apply to federally defined insurance benefits and affect almost all private health insurance plans including both employer-provided and individual coverage.

Who Are The Uninsured?

In 2015, approximately 9 percent of the population did not have health insurance, or about 29 million people in total. That number comes in the wake of the Affordable Care Act’s passage and enactment, which lead to a sharp decrease in the number of people without health insurance. The ACA increased coverage by expanding Medicaid eligibility and outreach while also creating subsidies to help individuals up to a certain income afford their health insurance premiums. The law also instituted a penalty, known as the individual mandate, for people who decide not to get insurance. So even after a massive effort to increase coverage, who remains uninsured and why?

According to survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the most common explanation people give for not having health insurance is the cost of coverage–46 percent of respondents cited cost as the primary reason. However other reasons–like confusion about the requirement to obtain coverage, issues getting coverage, and preferring to pay the penalty rather than the cost of insurance–also explain why people do not have insurance.

Survey data indicates that the most of the people without health insurance are low-income. About 80 percent of the uninsured population have incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty line–which is also the income threshold to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, meaning that some federal funding is available to help them purchase insurance. There is evidence to suggest that a portion of the uninsured are not aware that they qualify for federal subsidies, and many who are aware may still forego insurance because even with financial assistance the cost remains too high.

While a plurality of the uninsured population is white, accounting for about 45 percent of the total, people of color are disproportionately more likely to not have insurance relative to their share of the total population. Approximately 15 percent of the uninsured population is black and just over 30 percent is Hispanic. Just over one-fifth of those without health insurance are not U.S. citizens, including both immigrants with and without legal status in the United States. Legal immigrants are eligible for subsidies when buying insurance on public exchanges, and after living in the country for more than five years, can be eligible for Medicaid.

Finally, legal challenges to the law resulted in the decision to expand Medicaid resting with the states, and several states–including ones with particularly large populations like Texas and Florida–chose not to accept funding from the federal government to help cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line. Currently, 32 states including the District of Columbia opted to expand Medicaid, while 19 states have not. Because of this, there is a significant “coverage gap” in non-expansion states between the people who are eligible for Medicaid and those who are eligible for premium subsidies. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that more than 2.5 million people fall into this gap, as they would qualify for Medicaid if their state decided to expand coverage.

Conclusion

Health insurance coverage in the United States comes from a variety of different sources. Private health care continues to be the most prominent form of health insurance, with employer-provided coverage being the largest source. But the government also plays a particularly important role in the health insurance landscape. Medicare and Medicaid together provide coverage to nearly 35 percent of the U.S. population. Medicare provides health insurance to the elderly as they age, while Medicaid has grown to cover a diverse group of Americans who would likely have difficultly purchasing private insurance.

Recent efforts to increase insurance coverage, most notably the Affordable Care Act, led to a large reduction in the number of people without insurance, but despite those efforts, many remain uninsured. For a variety of reasons, roughly 9 percent of the population continues to go without health insurance, citing the cost of coverage as the primary reason. One way to reduce that number would be for all states to expand Medicaid, which would help resolve the coverage gap where many low-income Americans are stuck.

Recently, a lot of the discussion about health care has focused on regulations that affect individuals who do not get insurance through their employers. While people purchasing health care directly from insurers on exchanges account for a relatively small share of the overall population, their concerns have become particularly important to recent legislative debates. The cost of health insurance on the public exchanges have become unaffordable for many, and lack of competition in certain markets has left some areas with only one insurer to buy from. This problem many be getting worse, and next year, the number of insurers in some places may drop to zero. Given the pressing nature of these concerns, they tend to garner a lot of attention, and rightly so. But as we debate health policy, it’s important to keep in mind where the individual market fits into the overall landscape.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post By the Numbers: Health Insurance Coverage in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans released their version of a bill to overhaul the health care system on Thursday. In general, the Senate version looks a lot like the version passed by the House in May with some important tweaks–notably, it includes steeper cuts to the Medicaid program in the long-term and changes the tax credit system to be a less generous version of the one currently in place. While it’s easy to get stuck in the details of these tweaks, arguably the best way to evaluate the bill is to look at its effects on taxing and spending. It may be most prudent to ask one question: should we offset tax cuts for the rich and businesses by cutting spending on the poor and working class?

The tax cuts in the American Health Care Act, or AHCA, amount to about $660 billion over 10 years and would be paid for, and then some, largely by slashing more than $800 billion in spending on Medicaid–the insurance program that provides health care to America’s most vulnerable, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and the poor. Although it would direct several billions of dollars to funds that help stabilize the individual insurance markets, that funding will end in 2026 while the changes the Medicaid will be permanent.

To understand current Republican proposals, it’s worth taking a minute to look at the law they seek to “repeal and replace.” The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, included a number of new taxes designed to help pay for new tax credits and a large expansion of the Medicaid program. The tax credits subsidized the cost of premiums for working class people who can’t get health insurance from their employer and the Medicaid expansion gave states funding to cover people living near the poverty line.

While the Affordable Care Act sought to raise taxes in order to increase insurance coverage, the American Health Care Act seeks to cut taxes, leading to a large reduction in the number of people with health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan agency tasked with analyzing the effects of new legislation, the bill that passed the House would have increased the number of people without health insurance by 23 million by 2026. Although we will not have the updated projections for the Senate version until next week, that number is not expected to change very much.

The Senate version of the AHCA would undo the Medicaid expansion, phasing out the additional federal funding, and would reduce the value of the tax credits for most Americans who are currently eligible for them. In addition to ending the Medicaid expansion, the Republican bill would fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program by instituting a cap on the amount of funding per person enrolled. This new system would shift the burden of cost increases from the federal government–which currently covers a fixed percentage of all costs–to states and would amount to a significant reduction in the projected spending on the program in the long term. Medicaid is the country’s largest health insurance program, covering 20 percent of all Americans, including 30 percent of adults with disabilities, 60 percent of children with disabilities, 49 percent of births, 64 percent of all nursing home residents, and 76 percent of poor children.

For a more in-depth look at what the bill that passed the House would do to Medicaid, check out this article.

So who would benefit from the bill’s tax cuts? The AHCA would get rid of about 14 different taxes that target a broad range of groups, from high earners to indoor tanning companies. It would also slash some of the taxes put in place by the Affordable Care Act to target industries that stood to benefit from the coverage expansion, like medical device manufacturers and prescription drug makers. One of the most notable taxes was the one on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning $250,000 and up per year. All of these taxes would be repealed, leading to a significant windfall for the wealthiest Americans. The Tax Policy Center estimated the net effects of the House bill and found that people with incomes greater than $200,000 would see their tax burden decrease by $5,640 on average, while the spending cuts would mean that the lowest income Americans would be hurt the most.

New TaxVox post explains how low income families would lose an average of $1,600 under proposed #AHCA https://t.co/F5IyOwub0e pic.twitter.com/Jn2KgfERT5

— Tax Policy Center (@TaxPolicyCenter) March 22, 2017

It’s also worth noting that the bill would repeal what’s known as the individual and employer mandates. The individual mandate requires people to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty at tax time. The employer mandate imposes a similar penalty on companies with a minimum number of full-time workers but do not offer health insurance to employees. Republicans have strongly criticized these penalties, which have been one of the driving forces behind the effort to scrap the Affordable Care Act.

There are a number of important differences between the House version and the Senate version of the Republican health care bill, which we will undoubtedly hear about during the coming debate. It also seems likely that changes will be made in the short period before Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rushes the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. While it’s important to understand how these changes will affect people, taking a broader look at a very complicated bill might be the easiest way to make an assessment of it. If you think that taxes on businesses and the wealthy are too high and you don’t mind seeing an increase in the number of people without health insurance, then you’ll most likely support this bill. But if not, you may want to call your senator.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post One Question That Will Help You Understand the Republican Health Care Bill appeared first on Law Street.

As President Trump and the Republican Congress continue their efforts to remove or weaken regulations put in place under the Obama Administration, changes to banking rules may be some of the most consequential. To understand what’s in store for American banking regulations, it’s important to look at their foundation, namely the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Much of the current debate over financial regulation stems from the many provisions in Dodd-Frank.  Read on for an overview of three of the law’s most important components and a look at its future.

The Dodd-Frank Act

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed a law that sought to place additional regulations on banks, improve and unify oversight, and protect consumers in order to prevent another crisis from happening. While the actual success of that law–the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, known as the Dodd-Frank–continues to be debated to this day, it is responsible for establishing many of the key components of the current regulatory system. The law created many new regulatory bodies that have churned out an even greater number of regulations, but for the purpose of this look, we will focus on three of the main consequences of the law.

Capital Requirements

The general idea behind bank regulations is that bank failures are extremely costly events that can pose serious risks to the entire economy, so we should regulate them to ensure their stability. One of the most universally agreed upon ways to improve the stability of the financial system is requiring banks to hold higher amounts of capital. Bank capital essentially includes all assets that do not have to be repaid, which allow banks to sustain losses if their other assets, like loans, decrease in value. Generally speaking, bank capital includes things like common stock and profits, which are used to fund a bank’s investments. While banks tend to fund most of their business with debt–namely deposits, which are a form of short-term, low-interest debt that is used to fund loans and other investments with higher returns–capital is simply another source of funding that also serves as a stabilizing force if a bank’s other assets decrease in value.

Writing in Slate, Matt Yglesias uses the example of a home loan to illustrate how bank capital works. When buying a home, you typically make a down payment and then fund the rest of the purchase with a loan. That down payment is your ownership or equity in the house–which you own and do not have to repay–and works along the same lines as bank capital. If the value of your house increases then the value of your equity increases. But if the home’s value decreases beyond what you have paid for it, then your loan is considered underwater–meaning you owe more than the house is worth. When the same thing happens to a bank, it becomes insolvent and fails. Higher capital requirements help ensure that banks can still operate when their assets drop in value.

If people chose a bank based on whether or not they viewed it as a safe place to put their money, then it would make sense for banks to have high levels of capital to appeal to customers. But because the federal government insures depositors via the FDIC, a bank’s capitalization matters less to individuals when choosing a bank. As a result, banks are incentivized to increase leverage and risk to increase their returns rather than capital to improve their stability. In return for the federal guarantee, however, regulators require banks to do their share to promote stability by mandating that they hold a certain amount of capital.

Dodd-Frank increased capital requirements in a number of ways. It set a higher leverage ratio–the ratio of a bank’s debt to capital–and created a separate risk-weighted requirement that uses looks at how risky different assets are. Mike Konczal, a fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute and proponent of Dodd-Frank, argues that both are necessary to ensure stability. A leverage requirement on its own would push banks to maximize their assets’ risk in order to increase returns. And because risk weighting is susceptible to bias, an overall leverage requirement helps act as a backstop in the event that risk estimates are off.

Some argue that requiring banks to fund their business with a higher amount of capital is more expensive for banks, which has effects on the economy as a whole. The thinking goes that forcing banks to fund themselves with capital reduces their ability to make loans and extend credit to businesses, which in turn slows the economy. While proponents of higher capital requirements note that although capital levels are higher than they were before the crisis, they remain low from a historical perspective and argue that the cost of capital is often overstated by banks. Some even dispute the notion that capital is costly for banks and argue that bankers’ opposition to higher capital requirements may have more to do with the way they are paid.

In addition to stricter capital requirements, Dodd-Frank also requires the banks to undergo regular “stress tests” to simulate their ability to handle various crisis scenarios. It also requires the largest banks to submit plans to wind themselves down in the event of a failure and set up a process for the FDIC and the Fed to liquidate a failing bank in order to prevent risk from spreading throughout the system.

The Volcker Rule

While you may not have heard people talk about the Volcker rule specifically, it’s more likely that you have heard someone like Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren discuss the need for Congress to pass a “21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.” Although there are important distinctions between the two, the original Glass-Steagall Act and the Volcker rule target the same issue. Both regulate or prevent banks from using deposits, which are insured by the FDIC, to make what are considered risky or speculative bets for their own gain.

For a better understanding, it’s worth taking a minute to look at the history of banking in the United States. The original Glass-Steagall law was put in place after the Great Depression to put a wall between commercial banks–traditional banks that take deposits and make loans–and investment banks–banks that trade investment securities and help companies issue stocks and bonds. In 1999, that law was repealed, leading to the formation of a handful of very large universal banks that do both commercial and investment banking. While most tend to think that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the crisis, the mega-banks that it gave rise to certainly played a role–allowing banks to grow quickly and experiment with new financial products likely contributed to the culture or risk-taking and lax regulation that worsened the crisis.

The Volcker Rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, sought to prevent the new universal banks from engaging in some of the riskiest behaviors of investment banks. Volcker played an important part in drafting Dodd-Frank and focused a lot of his attention on regulating risky bank activities. His eponymous rule sought to stop banks from doing what’s known as proprietary trading–or using their own money to make speculative investments for profit. Essentially, the law sought to mirror some of the effects of Glass-Steagall without breaking up the banks outright, choosing instead to limit the risks that institutions with a commercial banking arm could take. As Volcker sees it, the government has an interest in subsidizing and helping commercial banking with policies like FDIC insurance and potentially even bailouts–because taking deposits and making loans are important functions for the entire economy. However, he also believes that with a government subsidy, banks should not be allowed to take on excessive risk.

The Volcker rule has been criticized from all angles. Banks argue that it amounts to a significant attack on their ability to make profits, while reformers claim that it is full of loopholes and that it doesn’t fully accomplish its own stated goals. And those on the leftmost flank of the Democratic Party argue that the rule, and Dodd-Frank more generally, is not aggressive enough–while regulations under the law are notably more stringent than before the crisis, the government should have broken up the banks and forced larger structural changes onto the financial industry.

It’s also worth noting that the original goal of the Volcker rule was weakened when Dodd-Frank and the resulting regulations were drafted. Several loopholes were included that allow banks to continue to invest a portion of their assets in hedge funds and private equity funds as well as exceptions for trades done on behalf of customers.

The CFPB

When lawmakers set out to revamp financial regulation, they noticed several areas that did not have a single authority in charge–instead, a complex network of overlapping agencies was tasked with creating regulations to accomplish several different goals. A notable example of this was consumer protection, which prior to Dodd-Frank was under the control of about 10 different agencies. The fragmented nature meant that no single agency had a primary mandate to protect consumers, which made it difficult for the government to hold financial institutions accountable in cases where individuals were harmed. As a result, an important part of Dodd-Frank was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with wide powers to regulate and punish the misconduct of a wide range of institutions. The broad authority and unique structure of the CFPB have made it a controversial component of the reform law, with businesses and conservatives criticizing its authority and accountability structure and progressives arguing that it is essential to keep the industry in check.

The CFPB acts as a regulator in that it creates new rules for financial institutions and punishes them for misconduct. It is also streamlined the complaint process to help consumers take recourse with companies when they have a problem. It created a public complaint database, providing important information for consumers and helping regulators identify common problems. Aaron Klein, a fellow and research director at the Brookings Center on Regulation and Markets, compares the CFPB to Google and Yelp, as it provides a central place for information and reviews to help people make informed choices. In the five years that the CFPB has been in existence, it has provided more than $11 billion in relief for 27 million consumers.

Conclusion

As efforts to undo regulations passed in the wake of the financial crisis gain momentum, it’s important to look back at the law central to the current discussion: Dodd-Frank. Passed in 2010, Dodd-Frank marked the most significant regulatory revamp of the financial system since the great depression. It has been particularly controversial, attacked on the right for going too far and the left for not going far enough. Given its controversial nature, many of the law’s provisions are fairly vague, leaving a lot of latitude for regulators. As a result, the various agencies in charge of creating, updating, and enforcing regulations have a lot of control over how regulation works in practice. Changes to the underlying structure of the law will likely require new legislation, a prospect that does not seem likely given the need for bipartisan support in the Senate. But changes at the margins remain possible and even likely under the new administration. As President Trump continues his efforts to undo regulations and lessen the burden faced by businesses, we may see changes to the Volcker rule or even significant attempts to block its enforcement.

While there are a number of ways that existing laws and rules could be modified in the coming years, it’s important to remember the goals of the law that underlies the current regulatory framework. In many ways, Dodd-Frank was a compromise between various visions of financial reform, including new capital requirements to improve stability as well as the creation of new regulators and a complex set of rules to prevent risky behavior in the largest and most important financial institutions.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What are the Most Important Components of the Dodd-Frank Act? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has a variety of policies that are designed to help working parents with the cost of child care, but those policies tend to be particularly complex and do little to help families with little or no income. While potential tweaks and alternatives have been debated for years, many experts are starting to unite around a new vision that could lift millions of children out of poverty and cut deep poverty in half while simplifying and improving benefits for all families, regardless of income.

Read on for an overview of the tax benefits available to families, where they fall short, and how a universal child allowance could work as an alternative.

Child Poverty in the United States

The child poverty rate in the United States is consistently higher than the rate in many other industrialized countries. Similarly, most other large countries provide some sort of universal benefit for all parents to help with the costs of raising a child. While the United States does have policies to help low-income families, the benefits don’t always reach those at the bottom of the income distribution, who are also the ones who need it most.

The chart below shows how child poverty in the United States compares to other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), based on the latest available data for each country.

While the moral case for helping children born into poverty at no fault of their own is certainly compelling, there is also a significant economic case for using government spending to address the issue. In an article published in the Journal of Children and Poverty, four researchers–Harry Holzer, Diane Schanzenbach, Greg Duncan, and Jens Ludwig–sought to quantify the cost of child poverty on the economy. They found that child poverty has large and measurable effects on costs like crime, lost productivity, and additional health spending. In total, child poverty has an estimated societal cost of about $500 billion per year, or about 4 percent of the GDP.

While estimating the exact cost of something like poverty is an inherently challenging thing to do precisely, which Holzer, Schanzenbach, Duncan, and Ludwig readily admit, the authors highlight the range of ways in which poverty can negatively affect society as a whole.

When it comes to fighting poverty, a growing body of research shows that providing cash assistance to families, particularly low-income families, is particularly effective and tends to pay off over a beneficiary’s lifetime. Interventions that provide assistance to very young children are particularly important, which is why many proposals to address poverty include an increase in funds for children under the age of six.

Current Child Benefits

To understand why many have started to think seriously about a universal child allowance, it’s important to look at how current child-related benefits work in the United States. Where there are several policies that seek to help parents, they can be complicated and most come with restrictions. A primary criticism of these policies is several of them actually do little to help those who need the most assistance, namely people with very low or no income.

Complicated Tax Policies

The United States currently has a handful of tax-related policies that seek to help working parents; each policy tends to target parents with different income levels. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are two that do the most to help families with low incomes. The EITC is a refundable tax credit, meaning that if it lowers a person in a couple’s tax liability to zero, it refunds the rest so recipients get the full value regardless of the amount they owe in taxes.

While the EITC offers a credit to individuals and married couples without children, only those with very low incomes can benefit and the maximum amount is relatively small. That changes significantly for parents, both in terms of income eligibility and the maximum amount available. The average amount for a family with children was $3,186 in 2015 but just $293 for a family without children. The credit is designed to encourage people to work by offering more money for additional income up to a limit and then phasing out at a certain income level. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a helpful interactive that shows how EITC amounts vary at different levels of income based on marital status and number of children.

Another tax credit is the Child Tax Credit, which has an additional component that also makes it refundable. Like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the refundable Child Tax Credit is designed to both encourage work and provide assistance for low-income parents. The CTC also phases out at a much higher level of income, meaning that it benefits a much larger range of people and is not only targeted toward the working poor. However, there is a minimum income level that people need to meet to benefit–people must earn at least $3,000 to qualify for it and they need at least $9,667 in income to get the maximum value. As a result, those with very little or no income are left out.

There are other tax policies that work to offset child care costs for middle and upper-income families while doing little for those with low incomes. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit allows parents to reduce their income tax liability by $3,000 per child up to a total of $6,000 but is not refundable. Similarly, the employer-provided childcare exclusion allows working parents to set aside up to $5,000 of income for child expenses without having to pay taxes on it. There is also a child exemption, which allows taxpayers to lower their taxable income by about $4,000 for each qualifying child.

While the non-refundable credits don’t really help people with the lowest incomes, it’s important to note that the credits directed toward low-income parents do play an important role in fighting poverty. According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure–which tracks people’s income after tax credits and government programs–the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit kept nearly 9.2 million people, including 4.2 million children, out of poverty in 2015.

A Universal Child Allowance

In light of the complex nature and limitations of current benefits, a growing number of experts have started to support the idea of a universal child allowance. While the concept of a universal child allowance could take several different forms, the general idea behind it would be to consolidate some or all existing policies into one benefit that is available to all parents, regardless of income. Doing so would expand tax policy to benefit all children and would have a particularly significant impact on those living in poverty. And if set to the right amount, experts believe that a policy could be designed in a way that doesn’t leave families worse off after eliminating existing benefits like the child exemption and child tax credit.

While we don’t yet have a fully fleshed out proposal with all of the details for what a universal child allowance would look like, and the details are important, people have modeled some possible options to give a general idea of what various plans would mean for child poverty. Researchers at The Century Foundation estimated the costs and benefits of several different possible child allowance designs. For example, they project that a $2,500 per child benefit would have brought an additional 5.5 million children out of poverty in 2013. An allowance of $4,000 per child would have brought more than 8 million children out of poverty. Both policies would have decreased the child poverty rate from 18.8 percent to 11.4 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. Both would also dramatically reduce the number of children in deep poverty–children in families living at less than half of the poverty line–dropping that rate by 49 and 65 percent, respectively.

There is a wide range of proposals to develop some sort of universal benefit for children. Notable variations include a simple proposal that would give parents the same amount for every child, a tiered proposal that would give more to children under the age of six and less for children seven to 17, one that would decrease for each additional child, or some sort of combination of those. Alternatively, some argue that we should increase the value and progressiveness of the Child Tax Credit. The Century Foundation mapped several of those alternatives and found that expanding the Child Tax Credit would also reduce child poverty, but not to the same extent that certain universal benefit proposals would.

Proponents of a universal child allowance also argue that it would best be distributed regularly, rather than once a year when a family files its tax return. Ideally, the benefit could be distributed each month to help offset the costs related to raising a child as parents face them. This stability can help low-income parents budget their finances and ensure that children’s basic needs are met all year round.

Conclusion

While it may not be likely that the United States adopts a universal child allowance in the near future, the possibility may be more likely than one might think. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have supported efforts to expand the value of the existing tax credit, and many agree that existing child benefits could be simplified. While making existing policies more available to low-income families would amount to significant reductions in child poverty, a regular benefit available to all parents would go even further.

Child poverty in the United States has been a persistent problem for a long time. Many other advanced countries have adopted some sort of universal benefit for children and that is likely an important reason why child poverty rates in other countries are often lower than in the U.S. If politicians are serious about fighting child poverty, an emerging consensus among researchers suggests that a universal allowance may be the best way to approach the issue.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universal Child Allowance: A Simple, Effective Way to Reduce Child Poverty? appeared first on Law Street.

Over the years, many states have tried to attach different conditions to public assistance programs for low-income Americans. These conditions include things like work requirements, which limit benefits to people who are currently working or actively pursuing employment, and drug testing, which limits benefits to people who are not currently using illegal drugs. Both of these policies have been in the news lately as Republicans at the state and national level seek to move assistance programs in a more conservative direction.

While many tend to refer to welfare as if it’s a single government program, assistance to low-income Americans generally comes through the tax code and a hodgepodge of programs administered at the state level. While a wide range of tax credits and public programs make up the American safety net, discussions of drug testing and work requirements typically focus on a handful of programs. Read on for an overview of the programs that are typically targeted for these requirements and what recent proposals would mean for them.

Conditions and Public Assistance Programs

Both drug testing and work requirements are important components of the ongoing debate over welfare policy. Many public assistance programs have work requirements built into them due to policy changes in the 1996 welfare reform legislation. And while some efforts to impose drug testing requirements have been blocked by the courts, according to the National Conference for State Legislatures, at least 15 states have passed legislation requiring public assistance applicants or recipients to be drug screened. These conditions have different implications for people based on how they relate to specific forms of public assistance. Here’s a look at four of the most discussed programs:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–previously referred to as food stamps and now known as SNAP–already has some limitations but the debate re-emerged last year as states started reimposing work requirements after getting waivers following the recession. The 1996 welfare reform law placed stringent requirements on able-bodied adults without children. The law only permits these adults to receive benefits for just three months every three years when they are not either employed or in a job training program for at least 20 hours per week. As a result, the vast majority of people who receive SNAP benefits are either employed or have dependent children. While lawmakers at the state level have called for drug testing requirements, federal law currently does not allow it.

In addition to work requirements, several lawmakers have called for limitations to be placed on what people can use SNAP benefits to buy. Proponents of these restrictions argue that people shouldn’t be able to use publicly funded programs to buy things like sugary drinks or expensive food like lobster. But opponents argue that these decisions are best left to individuals, and limitations on what you can buy already exist–for example, SNAP recipients cannot buy alcohol or prepared foods with their benefits. Moreover, they note that such rules may further stigmatize the use of the program, which has been a crucial means of preventing food instability for a large number of Americans.

Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF)

TANF is one of the few antipoverty programs that provides direct cash assistance, rather than in-kind benefits. The TANF program is administered by the states, which are given a federal block grant each year. Because of its funding system, states have a significant amount of control over how the block grant funds are used as well as the conditions that are tied to benefits. As the name suggests, TANF benefits are typically limited to families with children and have a duration limit. All benefits are also tied to work requirements. While states can define exactly who is eligible for assistance, work requirements are part of the underlying law–states face a funding penalty when their TANF work participation rates are below what is defined by federal law.

State-level flexibility has also led many states to implement drug testing requirements for TANF recipients. However, courts have found that states do not have an unlimited authority to require drug screening. A Florida law requiring all TANF recipients to be drug tested was struck down in court because suspicion-less testing requirements amounted to an unconstitutional search. What set Florida’s law apart from similar laws in other states was its breadth–requiring all recipients rather than focusing on those suspected of drug use.

The law was also not cost effective while it was in effect–the state spent more reimbursing people for drug tests than it would have if it had given them benefits without screening. More generally, critics of efforts to attach conditions to public assistance programs tend to cite the unnecessary administrative costs that come with determining a person’s employment and drug use status.

Medicaid

Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans, has been a recent target for both work requirements and drug testing. A recent letter from the Department of Health and Human Services to the states indicated that the Trump Administration would give more flexibility to states to impose work requirements for people in the Medicaid program. Wisconsin plans to take its Medicaid program in an even further conservative direction, imposing drug screening requirements, work requirements, and time limits for those receiving benefits. Under Wisconsin’s proposal, applicants would need to fill out a questionnaire and, based on their responses, could have to undergo drug screening. If they test positive, they will be diverted into a drug treatment program and if they decline treatment they will be denied benefits altogether. As the Trump Administration signals that states will have more control over the administration of Medicaid, we can expect to see additional states propose conservative changes to Medicaid, but legal challenges may be just as likely.

Given the nature of Medicaid and the health care system in general, even some who support work requirements in principle question their use for Medicaid. Because the government requires emergency rooms to provide care to people regardless of their ability to pay for it, work requirements in Medicaid would not have the same effect as they do in programs that could simply cut off all benefits. This would also mean that more costs are shouldered by hospitals, including public hospitals funded in part through tax dollars, which limits the cost-savings related to pushing people unwilling to work off of public programs.

The video below gives a brief overview of how work requirements would work in Medicaid:

Unemployment Insurance

The Unemployment Insurance program has been around since 1935 and seeks to help the recently unemployed manage their expenses as they look for a new job. The program typically provides benefits, about half of an unemployed person’s previous salary up to a limit, for about 26 weeks in most states. The system is funded by employers on behalf of their workers through state and federal taxes. Federal law says that people eligible for Unemployment Insurance must be able to and currently be looking for work while they receive benefits, although states have the ability to define certain eligibility details.

Unemployment Insurance has been a frequent target of drug testing requirements, but a recent regulatory rollback may have inadvertently made it harder for states to place such requirements on beneficiaries. As a part of the effort to remove a number of regulations put in place under the Obama Administration, Republicans used the Congressional Review Act–a law that allows for the expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president–to scrap a Department of Labor rule outlining who could be drug tested for unemployment benefits. The regulation came out of a provision in a 2012 law that allowed states to drug test individuals before receiving unemployment benefits according to federal regulations. When the regulations were finally enacted, Republicans said they were too narrow, limiting people eligible for the tests to those in a small set of occupations. The rationale was to subject people who would need to pass a drug test for a new job to also be subject to the same tests when receiving unemployment benefits. But the law was contingent upon existing federal regulations, and now that Republicans scrapped the rules that existed, states are now unable to require drug testing absent federal regulations. Writing new rules will take some time, and removing an existing regulation makes it considerably more difficult to pass a new one seeking to accomplish the same thing. As a result, some administrative law experts believe that getting rid of the previous rule may actually set back efforts to enact drug testing requirements.

Conclusion

While there is significant disagreement on the extent to which the government should assist the poor and unemployed between the two major political parties, both Republicans and Democrats tend to agree that the government should do something to help those in need. The primary disagreement stems from how much the government is willing to pay and who is eligible for assistance. Drug testing and work requirements are seen by conservatives as a way to reduce eligibility to people who deserve it and cut costs as a result. Critics say that these requirements add more to the cost of administration than they save in withheld benefits. They also argue that placing these requirements can stigmatize the programs and discourage people who need help from seeking it.

It’s also important to realize how different requirements interact with various programs and how certain funding systems make adding conditions easier at the state level. Block grants, like the one used to fund the TANF program, give states the most flexibility to impose requirements on those receiving benefits, while entitlements tend to need a change in federal law.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drug Testing and Work Requirements: Attaching Strings to Public Assistance appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently reduced the scope of his threat to withhold funding from sanctuary cities, narrowing the focus to a set of grants made by the Justice and Homeland Security departments. This is the latest development in an ongoing dispute that dates back to President Donald Trump’s fifth day in office.

Sessions issued the new guidance in a memo to the grant-making components of the Department of Justice. He outlined what will constitute a sanctuary city for funding purposes and explained which grants these cities could risk losing. This stems from an executive order signed by Donald Trump on January 25 titled, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which is currently tied up in a legal challenge. The original order threatened to withhold all federal funding, while this most recent memo indicates that it might only affect a relatively small number of grants.

In April, a federal judge blocked a central part of the executive order, prompting President Trump to criticize the ruling and vow to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Judge William Orrick, a district court judge in San Francisco, issued an order in favor of Santa Clara County and the City of San Francisco, both of which challenged the order, arguing that withholding all funding from sanctuary cities was clearly unconstitutional.

The new memo may be a response to this ruling, which referenced past opinions to show that the executive branch does not have unilateral authority to revoke funds or use them to coerce state and local governments. While courts have upheld efforts to attach strings to grant funding, those conditions typically need to be related to the purpose of the grant, and it is usually Congress, not the executive branch, that sets these conditions. For example, courts have said that Congress can condition a portion of highway funding on local drinking age laws because the two are related.

There is no agreed-upon definition for what a sanctuary city is, but the general idea behind the term applies to local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration officials. When it comes to grant funding, the government has chosen a fairly narrow definition. In fact, Attorney General Sessions’ memo specifically says that willful non-compliance with one specific statute is what will be used to determine sanctuary status.

That statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, specifically deals with communication between local governments and federal immigration authorities. It prohibits local governments from blocking or limiting the ability of local officials or agencies from communicating with immigration agents. In April, Sessions notified nine local governments that their laws potentially violate the statute and threatened to withhold Justice Assistance Grant funding if they don’t provide proof of compliance by the end of June.

In the most recent memo, Sessions narrowed his interpretation of the executive order to “be applied solely to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security, and not to other sources of federal funding.” He also notes that this condition will only apply to grants from the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Policing Services, departments where compliance with Section 1373 is a condition.

In his ruling, Judge Orrick notes that both Santa Clara County and the city of San Francisco get a large portion of their overall funding from the federal government, most of which is unrelated to immigration enforcement. Santa Clara receives $1.7 billion, or about 35 percent of its annual revenue, from the federal government while San Francisco gets $1.2 billion, or about 12.5 percent. That funding comes from a wide range of programs, including entitlement programs, and is used to pay for a number of critical government services. Judge Orrick also concludes that Santa Clara and San Francisco are likely to win the case given the limitations on the executive branch’s control over funding.

While the part of President Trump’s order that seeks to withhold all funding from sanctuary cities is likely unconstitutional, it’s unclear whether a narrower effort–like the one outlined in Sessions’ recent memo–would be successful. As the process continues, we can expect to see additional legal challenges as cities and states fight to maintain both their existing policies and funding.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Narrows Funding Threat to Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration continues its efforts to undo much of the regulation put in place during President Barack Obama’s term in office, the FCC’s efforts to peel back net neutrality rules will be particularly controversial, as the issue has sparked fierce debate for several years. While much of the regulatory rollback happened quickly using the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows for expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president, the net neutrality rules will take quite a bit more time. In fact, this is just the latest development in a regulatory dispute that has been going on for nearly 10 years. Read on to see why this is such a contentious issue, what the proposed regulations would do, and what we can expect in the weeks and years ahead.

Quick Refresher: What is Net Neutrality?

While many people have heard the term network neutrality, understanding of it tends to vary widely. That may be because net neutrality is more of a general concept than a set of clear rules. The principle behind it is the idea that all online content should be treated equally and that no internet provider should be able to discriminate or block content regardless of the source or type. Most people support net neutrality, or at least the general concept behind it, but disagree on what needs to be done to ensure that networks are designed in a way that lives up to that principle. That disagreement is what brings us to the current debate over internet regulations. Some advocates argue that regulations blocking internet providers from discriminating against or privileging certain content or sources are necessary to protect a free and open internet. Opponents argue that absent these regulations we still wouldn’t have a problem with content discrimination and we should have as few regulations as possible to allow for internet investment and innovation.

The two major categories of groups involved in these debates are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content companies. Internet service providers are the companies that sell access to the internet, like Timer Warner Cable, Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T. Content companies are the businesses that create and distribute the things you find online–notable examples of these include Netflix, Google, and Facebook, but every website or online service is essentially a content company. The three core priorities for net neutrality regulation have been to prohibit blocking, slowing, and the paid prioritization of a source or type of content as it makes its way through the network to consumers.

While many agree that blocking and slowing shouldn’t be allowed, the issue of paid prioritization is one that tends to have more gray areas. This debate manifests itself in the context of internet fast lanes, where companies can pay up to ensure that consumers can download their services as quickly as possible, giving them a potential edge over the competition. For more on the fast lane debate, check out this explainer.

What Were the Old Rules?

Before we can get into the FCC’s proposal to peel back net neutrality rules, let’s take a quick look at how we got here. While Columbia Law professor Tim Wu coined the phrase in a journal article published in 2003, the regulatory debate didn’t really come into play until 2008, when it was revealed that Comcast was blocking or slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. After that dispute, the FCC tried to intervene to prohibit companies from slowing or blocking traffic, but a federal appeals court ruled against the commission, concluding that it had limited authority over internet traffic. Two years later, the FCC issued an Open Internet Order establishing rules that sought to ensure neutrality with a focus on blocking, discrimination, and transparency. However, Verizon sued the commission, and in 2014, a federal appeals court struck down the bulk of those rules and concluded that under the internet’s current classification, the FCC didn’t have the authority to prevent ISPs from slowing or blocking web traffic.

At the center of the issue was the FCC’s initial decision to classify the internet as an information service and not a telecommunication service. The Communications Act of 1934–which created the FCC and was most recently overhauled in 1996–gives the commission varying authority when regulating these different services. The courts ruled that under the initial classification of the internet, the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit the blocking or slowing of web traffic. Following those decisions, the FCC decided in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, which gave it much greater authority to regulate. It then imposed regulations that were similar in principle to the original rules, but were upheld initially by the courts due to the new classification. This change, classifying the internet as a public utility, allowed the FCC to regulate providers as common carriers to block any form of traffic discrimination.

The FCC’s New Plan

Although the Obama-era FCC, led by former Chairman Tom Wheeler, went through the process of reclassifying the internet to allow for stricter regulation, that effort will likely be reversed under President Trump. The 2015 rules were adopted after a 3-2 vote by the FCC and one of the commissioners voting against the measure, Ajit Pai, now holds the reins as the commission’s chairman and has since vowed to undo those regulations.

Re-Reclassification

The FCC recently took the first step in its efforts to remove the utility-style regulations placed on the internet. While the whole process will likely take some time and face several lawsuits along the way, much like the original reclassification process, most expect Commissioner Pai to be successful. The process for creating new regulations is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a notice and comment period for all proposed changes. This means that the FCC is required to notify the public that a rule change is coming, then seek public comments and take those into consideration as it develops the final rule. The FCC issued its notice of proposed rulemaking on May 18 to begin that process. While we do not know exactly what the new rule will involve–after the comment period, the final rule will be drafted, debated, and then adopted–the public notice outlined the commission’s goals going forward.

First, the rule would reclassify the internet to remove Title II regulations from internet service providers, moving back to what proponents call a light-touch framework under Title I. It would also reclassify mobile broadband, provided companies like AT&T and Verizon, as a private mobile service, which currently faces the same common carrier regulations after the 2015 rule change. Finally, the notice also asks for comments on what are known as the FCC’s bright-line rules, which are the central components of past net neutrality regulations. Specifically, these rules prevent providers from blocking, slowing, and creating paid prioritization deals with content companies. Finally, the proposal would remove a conduct standard created under the Title II regulations that applied to all ISPs.

While blocking and slowing have been important issues in the past, the possibility for paid prioritization, or internet fast lanes, under the new rules could have the biggest effect on the direction of the internet. This form of prioritization would allow large content companies like Netflix and YouTube to negotiate deals with ISPs to ensure that their content is delivered to consumers faster than other services. While competitors may be able to strike up their own deals in an effort to level the playing field, new companies may not have sufficient money in the early stages of development to secure these deals, making established companies more difficult to challenge.

In the video below, Chairman Pai outlines his goals for the new regulation:

FCC Chairman Pai argues that these rules will spur investment, leading ISPs to expand and improve upon their networks. He says that the utility-style regulation under the current rules places too much of a regulatory burden on internet companies making additional investment less attractive. In Pai’s view, investing in innovation and infrastructure is one of the most important issues facing the internet today, so he prefers fewer regulations in an effort to spur that investment.

Opponents argue that net neutrality is core to the innovative nature of the internet, and note that several companies have said that such rules would have little impact on investment decisions. Moreover, they note that given the ubiquity of the internet in our personal and professional lives, we should start to look at it like another utility company. Instead of loosening regulations to allow companies to innovate, we should view these networks like we do the electrical grid–as essential to our daily lives–and regulate them as such. The video below outlines the rationale for viewing ISPs as utilities:

Conclusion

Internet rules have been one of the most controversial regulatory issues in the last several years and the FCC’s recent efforts to change them once again mean that they will continue to be a hot-button issue in years to come. While the concept of net neutrality is quite broad, most of the current discussion focuses on whether we need rules to prevent blocking, slowing, and paid prioritization of online content–the so-called bright-line rules.

Amidst these larger debates are more technocratic ones relating to the extent of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority to regulate the internet. When previous attempts to enact bright-line rules to prevent discrimination against any kind of traffic have failed when challenged in the courts, the FCC under President Obama decided to reclassify the internet in order to make those rules with the necessary authority. While the Title II, utility-style regulations were initially upheld by the court, it’s unclear whether that question will be answered now that the new chairman is already working to undo past efforts. Given the level of interest across the political spectrum and from private citizens and large corporations alike, more court cases are likely to follow. But many still expect these changes, once they have worked their way through they regulatory process, to be upheld in the courts. Given the number of changes to internet regulation in the past several years, many observers have called on Congress to settle the issue once and for all. While the future of net neutrality remains uncertain, we can expect the ensuing regulatory debates to continue to ignite the vigorous public debate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Behind the FCC’s New Plan to Peel Back the Net Neutrality Rules appeared first on Law Street.

As new platform companies like Uber and Lyft have people talking about the nature of work in the gig economy, the concept of employment has become more difficult to define. Recent research has shown that the number of workers who aren’t technically employees has increased significantly in recent decades. While this might not seem like a bad thing on its face, employment status has traditionally been tied to important protections and benefits, which may be eroding as these shifts affect a growing group of workers. While new tech companies get most of the attention as we debate the changing nature of work, it’s also important to realize that they are only playing a small part in larger trends. Read on to see how employment is changing, who is affected, and what that means for workers.

How Many People Are We Talking About?

While platform companies like Uber have gotten most of the attention lately, particularly in the context of labor disputes, it’s important to look at the scope of employment trends and the role that technology companies, and many others, currently play. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of available data on the growth of individuals with what are called “alternative work arrangements”–temporary workers, on-call workers, freelancers, contract workers, and independent contractors. What’s notable about these work arrangements is that they differ from traditional employment status, as they are typically less stable and include fewer protections and benefits.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics hasn’t conducted its Contingent Worker Survey (CWS) since 2005, which is where we would traditionally look to for a better understanding of how many Americans have non-traditional employment situations. However, economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz sought to make up for the gap in data by partnering with the Rand Corporation to conducting a survey of their own, which could be compared with past versions of the CWS to see how things have changed.

Krueger and Katz designed their survey to mirror the CWS so that they could accurately track how the share of workers with these alternative work arrangements has changed over time. In their research, they find a significant growth in the number of these workers from 2005 to 2015 in terms of their share of the total labor force–from about 10 percent in 2005 to nearly 16 percent in 2015.

Importantly, the researchers note that the increase in workers with alternative arrangements, 9.4 million between 2005 and 2015, is actually larger than the total increase in total employment (9.1 million). This means that the number of people who have traditional jobs actually decreased slightly over the last decade, while the number of people who work as independent contractors increased–by a lot. As Katz and Krueger put it, “A striking implication of these estimates is that all of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.” In 2015, the total number of these workers had grown to 23.6 million.

All Because of Uber?

While online platforms that match workers with temporary gigs–like Uber, Lyft, Task Rabbit, etc.–have brought the issue of nontraditional employment into the forefront, these companies actually play a relatively small role in the overall trend. In fact, Katz and Krueger estimate that these companies accounted for just 0.5 percent of the total workforce, or about 600,000 people, in 2015. While it’s likely that as these companies have grown that share has increased, they remain a small part of the shift toward alternative work arrangements.

Although technology platform companies account for a small share of alternative employment they have been at the center of the debate. Some see these companies as a great opportunity for people to use the resources that they have to easily and quickly make some money on the side or even full time. Others see the rise of companies like Uber as a problem–attributing their success to their ability to skirt or work around employment laws, not a triumph of new technology. There’s a notable segment of the population who may have an opinion about the quality of these services but haven’t given much thought to what they mean for their workers. Finally, it’s important to note that a significant percentage of people haven’t experienced or aren’t familiar with these services. According to a Pew Research Center survey from 2015, only 15 percent of Americans had used ride-hailing apps like Lyft and Uber, and one-third of Americans hadn’t even heard of them. While those numbers include important caveats–they focus on ride-hailing apps, not the gig economy as a whole, and more people have likely become familiar with these services since then–it’s important not to overstate the size of this phenomenon.

While the share of workers rose for all four of the alternative work arrangement classifications, there was a notable increase in workers hired by contract firms and temporary help firms, which according to Katz and Krueger account for more than half of the total increase between 2005 and 2015. Independent contractors still account for the largest percentage of people in these work arrangements at an estimated 8.4 percent of the labor force.

What Does it Mean to be an Employee?

In light of all of this, we should take a look at the differences between employee status and independent contractor status. Workers who have formal employee status with their employer are entitled to a range of benefits and are protected by several workplace-related laws. They can also collect unemployment benefits, disability insurance, and workers compensation. Contractors typically do not have these same protections and benefits and are responsible for the full share of their payroll taxes, while employers pay half of the tax burden for employees.

Being an independent contractor has its benefits, notably more control over your work, but that comes with fewer protections and benefits. There are several ways to determine if you are an independent contractor or an employee, but a lot of it boils down to how much control your employer has over what you do. Some people may prefer the freedom provided by contract work and freelancing, while others might prefer the stability and benefits involved with traditional employment.

Potential Challenges

While some may be willing to make the tradeoffs when opting for an alternative work arrangement, not everyone has that choice. In an effort to keep costs lower and more predictable, many companies have started to outsource tasks that would traditionally be done by employees to independent contractors. As a result, people looking for traditional employment may only be able to find contracting jobs, creating greater uncertainty for workers. While Katz and Krueger approximate that the shift to alternative work arrangements has been larger for high-income workers, examples of low-wage contracting abound and further research needs to be done to identify how the shifts contribute to wage inequality.

Work simply isn’t as steady and as reliable when you are freelancing or working as a contractor, and importantly, it is much more difficult for contractors to get benefits that are widely available to employees. These workers are also not protected by minimum wage and overtime laws and are typically unable to collectively bargain. And when businesses need to cut costs, they are more likely to reduce contracting expenses before they fire employees.

Many people actively decide to forgo those protections in order to have more control over their schedule and work, but given that this change has occurred during a period of high unemployment, workers may be taking these positions out of necessity rather than choice. While we don’t know exactly what prompted these larger trends, it’s fair to question whether workers in alternative arrangements would prefer to be traditional employees if they had the option.

Addressing Changes in the Nature of Work

As more and more people find themselves without the benefits and protections of traditional employment, many advocates and policymakers have proposed solutions to protect these workers. Some have called for the creation of an intermediate classification to help workers that are not considered employees. Alan Krueger, this time with Seth Harris, proposed a new classification that they call the “independent worker.” Sitting in between the existing classifications, independent workers would be able to take advantage of some, but not all, of the protections provided to employees. They would be allowed collective bargaining rights and could pool together to fund insurance programs. They would also be able to benefit from tax withholding in their paychecks and would have their employer pay its half of their payroll taxes. While this classification would give them civil rights protections, minimum wage and overtime laws would not apply to them. Proponents argue that amending employment laws could give employers more flexibility while still ensuring important benefits and protections to workers.

Absent a new classification, some local governments have already made efforts to expand certain protections to independent contractors. In 2015, the Seattle City Council passed legislation to expand collective bargaining rights to drivers who work for transportation network companies as well as online platforms like Uber and Lyft. This allows drivers in the city to form unions and negotiate for better wages and benefits with the companies that they work for. However, that legislation was temporarily blocked by the courts before it took effect.

Other proposals focus on creating portable benefits, which are not tied to employment status. An example of this came from the Affordable Care Act, which created exchanges for individuals to buy health insurance on their own. The law also provides premium subsidies to reduce costs for those with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Additional efforts like President Obama’s proposed MyRA program would allow people in alternative work arrangements to have access to a simplified retirement account untethered from an employer. There is a range of proposals that would create systems for contract workers to buy benefits on their own or with the help of their employer.

Conclusion

As more and more people find themselves in alternative work arrangements, the traditional concept of employment  is changing. Many workers now have to manage work that is less stable and provides fewer benefits and protections relative to traditional employment. While these shifts likely reflect, at least in part, the changing preferences of workers, as people desire more flexibility and control, it is also likely that many people would prefer traditional employment.

Most of the recent discussion of these trends have focused on the rise of technology platform companies, which allow individuals to find short-term gigs as a new form of work. But that debate tends to mask the larger trend, as technology companies still account for a small share of the total labor force. In order to address this shift help the affected workers, policymakers will need to rethink how employment is connected to important benefits and protections. Proposals ranging from an entirely new employment classification to portable benefits, seek to address the needs of workers while ensuring that new companies have the flexibility they need to grow.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gig Economy and the Changing Nature of Work appeared first on Law Street.

After becoming the first police force to develop its own crime tracking system back in the 1990’s, the New York Police Department has decided to pioneer a new way to measure public safety: asking New Yorkers how they think the police are doing in real-time. While seeking feedback from the public is hardly a new idea, the new system developed by the NYPD employs new technology to get up-to-the-minute insights.

The NYPD’s new sentiment meter works much the same way that traditional polling does, except it will provide live data at a hyper-local level. With the same technology used by online advertisers, the NYPD will ask people to rate their trust, sense of safety, and approval of the local police. Working with a consulting company, the department will identify individuals by their location and ask them a short series of questions with online surveys targeted like commercial ads. The way it’s administered will allow the NYPD to constantly bring in new information about its performance in each neighborhood.

Since the implementation of CompStat–the department’s management and crime tracking system–in 1994, the NYPD has relied on crime statistics as one of its primary measures of success, contributing to a dramatic reduction in crime over several decades. Here’s a look at how the city’s violent crime rate per 100,000 residents has changed since the mid-1980’s and how that compares to cities with populations over 250,000 and the U.S. as a whole:

To see more of New York’s crime data or to see how other large cities compare, check out Law Street’s interactive dashboard.

While the NYPD has undoubtedly played a role in lowering the city’s violent crime rate, the department’s relationship with the community has frequently been strained. In many minority communities across the country, trust in the police has plummeted following high-profile deaths at the hands of law enforcement. And in New York, the death of Eric Gardner–who died from being placed in a chokehold by a police officer after he was confronted for selling cigarettes on the street–sparked protests across the city after a video of the incident went viral.

With the new system, which Police Commissioner James O’Neill has started calling the “sentiment meter,” the NYPD seeks to understand how people view the local police force and how those perceptions vary throughout the city’s 77 precincts. New technology will allow the department to monitor how New York residents rate its performance by surveying a larger sample, with more frequency than ever before. Much like how the CompStat system allowed the NYPD to identify hot spots–areas where crime was particularly prevalent–data from the sentiment meter will allow local commanders find neighborhoods with low trust in the police. This will allow them to create and evaluate new strategies to both reduce crime and improve public relations.

John Linder, who worked as a consultant to help the NYPD develop the system, outlined the department’s goals in an interview with the Marshall Project in January:

If we can find a way to give the commanders of the NYPD real time data on what people feel, then police brass can tailor strategies and tactics in response. It can give them more than just crime statistics, police activity (arrests, summonses, stop-question-frisks, case closures by detectives) to guide what they do and don’t do. That’s what O’Neill has told us to deliver.

While the department is hopeful that the new data will help resolve longstanding issues with the community, some still question whether the new data will be as useful as the NYPD suggests. Johnetta Elzie, founder of Campaign Zero–an advocacy group devoted to ending police violence–asked, “Who feels safe to even reply back? And who, in the marginalized community, is going to trust the police and send an honest answer back?” in an interview with the New York Times.

As crime rates in cities across the country have fallen over the past several decades, the key to reducing crime even further may be improving police-public relations. While it may take some time before the new system yields results for the NYPD, placing this level of emphasis on how the actions of police officers affect the many communities they serve is certainly a step in the right direction.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The NYPD’s New Plan to Measure Community Safety: Will it Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Now that Republicans have made progress in their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, health insurance regulations are back in the forefront of public debate. A notable component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the creation of essential health benefits, the law’s primary insurance regulation mandating what all policies must cover. This rule has been hotly debated and is something that the Republican replacement bill, the American Health Care Act, would allow states to seek waivers to define at the state level. While there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate when it comes to mandating high standards for health insurance plans, it may be helpful to look at how certain standards work in practice, and in certain cases, how their benefits can spill over into other public good.

The Role of Regulations

A new working paper by three economists, Ioana Popovici, Johanna Maclean, and Michael French, illustrate how state-level insurance regulations can have interesting spillover effects. They find that state laws that mandate insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment may have actually had a measurable effect on traffic deaths, decreasing fatalities by 4.1 to 5.4 percent. This is particularly important given that nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-involved car accidents each year. While their research is designed to focus on the effects of state laws passed before the Affordable Care Act, their findings help show how improving access to services like substance abuse treatment can have larger societal benefits beyond those who are directly affected.

The researchers looked at what are known as state parity laws, which involve requiring insurance plans to cover substance abuse treatment like they cover medical and surgical services in terms of the costs to consumers. Between 1988 and 2010–before the ACA started mandating this parity for all insurance plans sold on exchanges–27 states passed their own parity laws requiring substance abuse treatment to be covered to some degree. The researchers look at states that passed these laws to see what their effects on traffic deaths might be. In the process, they identified and controlled for a range of variables that would otherwise affect traffic fatalities–from alcohol tax rates to population demographics–in order to find the direct consequences of parity laws.

While the study does have some limitations–data on the use of drugs that impair driving as well as data on accidents that didn’t result in death are unavailable–they build on a considerable body of research showing both that health parity laws increase use of substance abuse treatment and that such increase is associated with fewer traffic deaths. They also find that these laws correspond with a decrease in fatal weekend crashes–which is when alcohol-related accidents are particularly likely–and that the decrease was particularly large, 8.7 percent, in states that mandated full parity. They also find that parity laws are associated with a small decline in both heavy and binge drinking; however, that is based on self-reported survey responses, not clinical diagnoses of alcohol dependence.

This study isn’t necessarily groundbreaking–it does make sense to think that expanding access to substance abuse would lower substance-related traffic fatalities–but it provides an interesting look at the consequences of health insurance regulations in general. The study looks specifically at spillover effects, setting aside the direct and obvious benefits to individuals who gain access to addiction treatment, to show that high-quality insurance can have meaningful consequences beyond those who directly benefit. While it’s important not to overstate these findings, identifying additional benefits to regulations should be a part of the discussion as we evaluate new policies.

The Current Health Insurance Debate

The Affordable Care Act did a number of things to increase people’s access to health care–including expanding Medicaid to nearly 15 million people and providing subsidies to individuals below 400 percent of the federal poverty line–but it also included a number of regulations to make sure people’s insurance covered important services. These 10 essential benefits include things like prescription drugs, emergency care, maternity care, and, notably, substance abuse treatment. While it’s fair to say that requiring these services, and rules that prevent insurance companies from capping annual or lifetime spending on them, have increased the cost of health insurance for everyone, they are also the services that most people expect their health insurance to cover in the first place.

While the Republican bill largely focuses on health care access for low-income families and those who buy their insurance individually, allowing states to set their own essential health benefits could actually have ripple effects for the entire country, including the majority of Americans who get their health care from their employer. While employer plans are not required to cover the essential health benefits in the same way that individual plans sold on the federal and state exchanges are, they do apply to bans on annual and lifetime limits as well as yearly caps for out-of-pocket costs. And large employer plans are able to use any state’s definition of essential health benefits to determine those caps. If one state were to decide that substance abuse treatment is no longer an essential benefit, there could be an erosion in coverage for residents of that state and people across the country.

There are always trade-offs involved in setting health care regulations, but it’s important to understand the potential benefits involved as we debate major policy changes. Substance abuse treatment has proven to be an important and effective way to dramatically improve people’s lives, and based on recent research, mandating it can have additional societal benefits as well.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did Health Insurance Regulations Reduce Traffic Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

As the American Health Care Act works its way through Congress, much of the debate has recently focused on issues like health insurance regulation. While that debate reflects important issues, like protections for people with pre-existing conditions, there is another part that would arguably have even larger consequences: the proposed cuts and changes to Medicaid. The AHCA would fundamentally change the funding structure for the safety net program and could have wide ranging effects on millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid for their health care. Read on for an overview of what’s in store for the program that provides insurance to nearly 20 percent of the country.

Who is Affected

Medicaid is the largest health insurance program in the country, which combined with the related Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), covered nearly 75 million people as of February. Medicaid covers a diverse group of people including low-income individuals and families, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

The video below explores what the Medicaid program is and how it is paid for:

To understand the scope of the proposed changes to Medicaid in the American Health Care Act, it’s important to look at how the bill it’s intended to repeal and replace–the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare–changed health insurance coverage in the first place. Generally speaking, the Affordable Care Act sought to increase insurance coverage by expanding the Medicaid program–through both increasing outreach and eligibility–while also creating regulated insurance marketplaces and providing subsidies to make health insurance more affordable.

The Medicaid expansion was directed at the lowest income Americans, specifically, people living below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, while insurance subsidies targeted those who were slightly better off but would still have difficulty paying for health insurance, namely those with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Regulations also ensured that individuals could buy insurance on public exchanges and that prices couldn’t vary much according to an individual’s characteristics like age, sex, or health status, which was another way to expand coverage to those who were either priced out of the market or denied insurance outright.

While several components of the ACA sought to lower the rate of uninsured Americans, the Medicaid expansion played the largest role in achieving that goal. The AHCA includes important changes for insurance subsidies and regulation–the proposed cuts and changes to Medicaid are considerably larger. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the effects of the AHCA in March after it was initially introduced and found that overall, the law would reduce the number of people with health insurance by 24 million within 10 years. The biggest chunk of that decrease, 14 million, would come from the proposed changes to Medicaid. While the law would not technically take people’s insurance away from them–states would have to make difficult decisions about enrollment and eligibility–it would amount to a large cut in federal spending on the program. In total, the CBO estimates that the bill would lead to an $839 billion decrease in federal Medicaid spending over the next 10 years.

The AHCA includes two primary changes to Medicaid that would lead to a significant reduction in people enrolled in the program. First, the bill would phase out the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, decreasing the number of people that states would get a high percentage of federal matching funds to cover. Second, it would change the program’s funding model from an open-ended commitment to an amount per enrollee that gradually increases over time.

Ending the Medicaid Expansion

The Affordable Care Act offered states matching funds to insure a large number of people newly eligible for Medicaid. A 2012 Supreme Court decision made the Medicaid expansion optional at the state level, and since then, 31 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to take the federal funds. At first, the government would pay the full cost of insuring these newly eligible enrollees, but over time the government’s share would drop, and by 2020, it would cover 90 percent of the cost of coverage. The matching rate for the enrollees who gained coverage from the expansion is actually higher than the traditional matching rate that states have historically received for those who were already eligible.

The American Health Care Act plans to unwind the Medicaid expansion starting in 2020. While the plan will end up with an estimated 14 million fewer people on Medicaid relative to current law, the AHCA’s passage will not technically take health insurance away from these individuals. Instead, it grandfathers in all newly eligible enrollees who are already in the program by December 31, 2019–allowing states to continue to receive the 90 percent fund matching for those individuals. However, for people who sign up after that point, the funding would drop to regular matching levels. This means that states will likely decide to restrict their program’s eligibility and return to standards that were in place before the Affordable Care Act.

People on Medicaid tend to cycle in and out of the program relatively quickly, which means that even though the AHCA grandfathers in expansion enrollees, coverage numbers are expected to drop fairly quickly after 2020, when states get lower matching rates. The bill would also require people on Medicaid to re-enroll every six months, rather than every year under current law, to maintain their coverage. This requirement could make it easier for people to accidentally have a lapse in their coverage, which could make those who are grandfathered in unable to re-enter the program. Based on how quickly people have cycled out of the program in the past, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that two years after the expansion ends, fewer than a third of those who were grandfathered in will remain on Medicaid. By 2024, fewer than 5 percent will remain. While the federal government won’t technically take people’s insurance away from them, the drop in funding will likely force states to make the difficult decisions surrounding eligibility and enrollment.

It’s worth noting that politics are an important variable here, so estimating coverage changes can be more of an art than a science when the actions of state legislatures are involved. It’s likely that states will react to a decline in federal funding by reducing the number of people eligible for Medicaid benefits. They may even do so preemptively, as they know that their funding will soon be reduced. Generally, the law will sharply reduce federal funding for Medicaid, but changes will be determined at the state level as they start to shoulder more of the costs.

A New Funding Model

In addition to phasing out the Medicaid expansion, the AHCA intends to dramatically change the funding system for Medicaid. Currently, Medicaid operates as an entitlement program, meaning that the federal government has an open-ended commitment to pay for a large share of the program’s costs. This means that if more people enroll in the program, as is often the case during economic downturns, the federal government continues to bear much of the increase in costs. Similarly, if the cost of medical care increases significantly, as it has been for several decades, the federal commitment increases accordingly. The entitlement nature of Medicaid has been a target of Republicans for decades; however, this is the first attempt to restructure the program while Republicans maintain control of all three branches of government.

Under the AHCA’s per capita cap system, states will get a certain amount per person enrolled. Those amounts will vary based on the different groups eligible for Medicaid to avoid giving states an incentive to shift enrollment to lower costs. For example, the system is designed to prevent states from being pressured to drop enrollment for the elderly or disabled because they may cost more than children. Each year, the per capita cap will increase along with the changes in medical care services component of the Consumer Price Index, which tracks inflation. The medical services component is known as CPI-M. The per capita system will make funding responsive to enrollment changes, but if certain Medicaid costs outpace the overall cost growth for medical services, states will need to pay the additional amount. Generally speaking, shifting to a per person allotment will amount to a significant cut in overall Medicaid spending. The Congressional Budget Office anticipates that Medicaid costs will grow by 4.4 percent per year while CPI-M will grow at just 3.7 percent annually over the next 10 years.

Additionally, the amended AHCA allows states to opt for a block grant rather than a per person cap. This would give states a grant based on their Medicaid population and would give them a considerable amount of freedom in terms of how to use that funding. Proponents say that this would allow states to experiment with funds in order to find new ways to keep costs down and deploy spending more effectively. However, critics argue that a block grant could mean states could be forced to cover fewer people or services than under the per capita cap model, and considerably more so than the current law. This is because block grants would not respond to increases in eligibility, for example due to a recession, and like the per capita model, it would not respond to cost increases that result from new or more expensive types of care. States could charge enrollees more for their care and they could cap enrollment, which could mean even those who are eligible may not be able to join the program.

How it would Change Medicaid

To illustrate how different the system would be under a per capita cap, economists at the Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers for Medicaid outlays from 2001 to 2011 to see how tying funds to CPI-M would affect spending. The KFF finds that federal spending would have been $195 billion below actual spending during that period, which would amount to a drop of about 7 percent. Importantly, these changes have very different consequences for the costs involved in covering the different eligible groups in the Medicaid program. For example, spending tied to CPI-M would have been 6 percent lower than actual spending when it comes to the health care costs for the disabled, but it would have been 15 percent lower for children on the program. In both of these cases, states would have had to shoulder more of the costs, but the difference is considerably larger due to faster growth in child health care costs. There is also a lot of variation between states in terms of what they pay for the average Medicaid enrollee. In fact, spending varies so much per person, that 13 states would have actually seen an increase or no change in their overall funding if it was anchored to CPI-M. However, 37 states and the District of Columbia would have seen their funding drop. And for 26 of those states, the drop relative to existing law would have been larger than 10 percent.

Subsequent amendments to the AHCA–after the initial Congressional Budget Office analysis–increased the per capita spending for the blind, elderly, and disabled to CPI-M plus one percentage point. Those changes amount to an estimated $41 billion in additional spending over the next 10 years, according to revised CBO projections. While $41 billion is a significant increase it may not be in the scope of the overall cuts–instead of reducing Medicaid spending by $880 billion, the amended law is projected to drop spending by $839 billion. While the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates mentioned above are based on CPI-M, and AHCA increases that rate slightly for certain populations, its calculations remain instructive.

Critics of the plan argue that the proposed per capita spending caps would limit states’ ability to respond to changes and could leave them on the hook for a lot of spending if certain costs grow faster than overall medical inflation. And because these caps will effectively result in spending cuts relative to the current law, it will ultimately leave states with less funding while also reducing their responsiveness to cost changes. An example of where this could be a problem is in Medicaid’s role in addressing the opioid epidemic. Many people who joined the program after the Medicaid expansion were previously uninsured and did not have access to addiction treatment. Moreover, the entitlement nature of the program allowed the program to respond to costs related to the epidemic. This is important given the program’s role in treatment–in total, Medicaid and CHIP, the related health insurance program for children, cover thirty percent of the U.S. population dealing with opioid addiction.

Conclusion

The American Health Care Act includes a number of adjustments to the current health care system, but the most wide-ranging might be the proposed cuts and changes to the Medicaid program. President Obama’s health law led to a large increase in Medicaid enrollment and the AHCA would roll much of that back while going even further to change the funding structure of the entire program. Taken together these changes amount to an $839 billion spending cut over the next 10 years and 14 million fewer people with health insurance.

Advocates of the bill argue that it will rein in Medicaid spending levels to a more sustainable course while granting states the ability to experiment and cut costs. Critics argue that it will dramatically increase the number of people without insurance by reducing federal funding for Medicaid while not offering alternatives to those who can’t afford insurance. As Senate Republicans begin to work on their own version of the health care bill, these wide ranging changes to Medicaid will likely be an important part of the debate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the American Health Care Act Plans to Dramatically Change Medicaid appeared first on Law Street.

After Republicans’ first attempt to swiftly repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act failed, President Donald Trump finds himself in a difficult position: he has to administer a law that he has frequently called a “disaster.” The question now becomes: will President Trump and Tom Price, his Secretary of Health and Human Services, try as hard as possible to support the law that’s already on the books or will they take steps to undermine it?

As Republicans continue to try to broker a compromise between their more moderate and conservative wings–and there’s at least some evidence they are making progress–questions about the existing law may need to be answered before any new legislation makes its way to the president’s desk. While many of these pending decisions are somewhat small or would require a long time before taking effect, there’s one relatively arcane component of the Affordable Care Act–cost-sharing subsidy payments–that could swiftly pull the rug out from under the health insurance exchanges that about 12 million people rely on for health insurance. Read on for an overview of the Affordable Care Act exchanges and to see how a pending lawsuit gives President Trump unique control over the fate of a major part of his predecessor’s landmark accomplishment.

An Overview of the Health Insurance Exchanges

The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, is an extraordinarily long piece of legislation that touched almost every part of the U.S. health care system–an industry that accounts for nearly one-fifth of the entire economy. One of the law’s primary goals was to lower the number of people without health insurance coverage. To do this, the law dramatically increased the number of people on Medicaid–the government-run health insurance program for low-income Americans–by expanding outreach and eligibility to a larger number of Americans. It also created federal and state-run health insurance exchanges on which people who do not get health insurance through their employer and also don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid can buy health insurance. While most of the coverage gains came from expanding Medicaid, creating regulated exchanges and offering subsidies made health insurance available to groups who previously did not have access to it on the individual market, notably those with preexisting conditions.

Individuals could buy health insurance before the Affordable Care Act’s passage, but insurers could charge people with chronic health conditions a lot more for insurance and could even deny coverage outright. The ACA introduced significant marketplace reforms to ensure that all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover a minimum set of services, known as the 10 essential benefits, and prevented companies from denying anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition. The law also included provisions that prohibited charging people higher premiums based on certain characteristics like gender or health status. For other characteristics, the law set specific ranges at which companies can use to price premiums. For example, companies can charge no more than three times as much for their elderly customers as they can for their youngest customers.

The law had a number of provisions to try to make the marketplaces stable for insurers and consumers. One of the most discussed (and controversial) market stabilization components of the law is the individual mandate–the requirement that everyone get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. To help make insurance affordable for consumers, the ACA provided premium subsidies to people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The premium credits are tied to a benchmark plan to ensure that an individual or a family’s healthcare spending is capped at a certain percentage of their income. This means that if insurance premiums change dramatically from one year to the next then the subsidy will also adjust for those who are eligible. Finally, the law also had several stabilization programs that sought to reduce the risk that insurers would face when beginning to sell plans on the new exchanges.

Cost-Sharing Reductions

One of the many ways the law sought to make care affordable for low-income Americans is the cost-sharing reduction requirements. The cost-sharing reduction provision is relatively small in the overall scope of the law, but remains an important component because it addressed costs that people face when going to get care. In addition to premiums, health insurance plans typically include several forms of cost-sharing, which involve out-of-pocket costs when someone visits the doctor or fills a prescription. The Affordable Care Act sought to reduce these costs for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level. People who are eligible for cost-sharing reductions must enroll in silver insurance plans, the middle tier plans, on the insurance exchanges. Based on an eligible consumer’s income, insurers adjust the value of the plan to ensure that they cover a certain percentage of all costs. The government then provides a subsidy to insurers so they recoup those costs. A typical silver plan has an actuarial value of 70 percent, meaning that the insurance company will, on average, pay 70 percent of the cost for covered services–the other 30 percent typically comes through different cost-sharing. In plans eligible for cost-sharing reductions, the actuarial value of a silver plan increases based how close a person or family is to the federal poverty level. For the lowest income Americans who buy insurance on the exchanges, the actuarial value goes as high as 94 percent.

This year there are 7.1 million Americans who have plans with cost-sharing reductions, accounting for 58 percent of all plans on the exchanges. The total cost of the subsidies provided by the government is about $7 billion each year. This process–in which insurers are required to reduce cost-sharing for certain low-income customers and then the government subsidizes the insurers–is key to understanding the current challenge, which we’ll get to in the next section.

It’s worth noting that the law was not implemented exactly as it was designed, as legal and legislative obstacles played a significant role in the way the law took effect. Additionally, while the law has many provisions to reduce the burden on insurers and consumers, there are a number of local marketplaces that are particularly fragile at the moment. Several insurers have pulled out of the exchanges and there are several counties where people buying insurance on the health exchanges have only one insurance plan to pick from. At the same time, there are several places where the exchanges have been particularly successful–where strong competition between insurers has created a stable market for consumers. Debating the overall success of the Affordable Care Act and what should be done going forward is clearly important, but that is beyond the scope of this piece. What is clear is that the law led to a significant legal and political backlash, which brings us to the next part of the story.

The Lawsuit

The passage of the Affordable Care Act sparked a number of legal challenges, several of which have made their way to the Supreme Court. But the lawsuit that is the most important right now is the one challenging the cost-sharing subsidies. Interestingly, this lawsuit didn’t come from private citizens, small businesses, or religious institutions, but from another branch of the government.

In November 2014, Republicans in the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the executive branch to challenge two aspects of the ACA’s implementation. The lawsuit first argued that President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by delaying the implementation of the employer mandate–a requirement that companies of a certain size must provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. Second, it claimed that the Obama Administration’s payments to insurers for the cost-sharing subsidies were illegal because the money had not been properly appropriated. A federal judge dismissed the first claim but allowed the second to proceed.

The Arguments

Both sides of the lawsuit agree that money cannot be spent unless it is properly appropriated, but the dispute focuses on the question of whether or not the current law amounts to an appropriation. House Republicans argue that although the ACA created the subsidy, the payments are not linked to a specific appropriation. Although the law calls for the payments to be paid, it doesn’t specify a source for the payments. This is not the case for the law’s premium subsidies, which are paid out in the form of refundable tax credits and are appropriated by the statute that allows the IRS to make refund payments. When the issue first emerged, President Obama asked Congress for a specific appropriation but Congress declined. After the lawsuit began, the Obama Administration argued that the same appropriation that is used for the premium subsidies can be used to make the subsidy payments to insurers.

Nicholas Bagly, a law professor and health care expert at the University of Michigan, has studied the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and argues that the Republicans’ lawsuit has a point. The justification used by the Obama Administration doesn’t quite make sense because tax credits are not the same thing as direct payments to insurance companies. As Bagley puts it, “It’s an enormous stretch to read an appropriation that governs refunds for individual taxpayers as also covering payments to insurers.” However, he also argues that the Republican lawsuit should have been thrown out by the courts in the first place. The White House and Congress are two coequal branches of government and they have the authority to resolve the dispute between themselves. If Congress has a problem with something the president is doing, it can pass a law that stops him from doing it. Congress could also pass a law appropriating the funding for the cost-sharing payments and the problem would be resolved. Allowing one branch to take an issue with another branch to the courts could set a problematic precedent as political disputes should ideally be resolved by elected officials.

What’s Next and Why It’s Important

After the district judge’s initial ruling–which allowed the cost-sharing subsidy claim to continue but dismissed the employer mandate claim–a separate ruling in 2016 ordered President Obama to stop making the payments. Obama immediately appealed the decision and the judge stayed her ruling so the White House could appeal. This means that right now, if President Trump decided to stop reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions, he could drop the appeal and the judge’s injunction blocking the payments would stand. Doing so would have massive consequences for the fate of the health insurance exchanges. This is also something that the president has publicly considered, but the fate of these payments remains unclear.

On April 10, the Department of Health and Human Services told the New York Times that it planned to continue making the cost-sharing payments to insurers while the lawsuit was being litigated. But a few days later, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said that he would consider withholding the payments as a way to force Democrats to negotiate on health care legislation. This was, in effect, a threat to undermine the insurance markets as a way to force a deal. Democrats have also reportedly considered demanding a specific appropriation for the payments for their support in a funding bill that will be needed before the end of April to avoid a government shutdown. While the politics of the issue remain unclear, the ultimate effects that ending the payments would have are fairly clear.

Consequences for Health Insurance Markets

Ending the cost-sharing subsidy payments would have dramatic consequences for the individual health insurance market. Ending the payments would not change the fact that insurers who sell plans on the exchanges would still need to provide cost-sharing reductions for customers who qualify–whether they get reimbursed by the government or not. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan organization that analyzes health care policy, estimated that average premiums would need to increase by 19 percent to offset the lack of government funding. These estimates varied by location, ranging from a projected 9 percent increase in North Dakota to a 27 percent in Mississippi. Alternatively, insurers may simply leave the exchanges altogether.

After several insurance companies had difficulty turning a profit in the early years of the ACA’s implementation, several companies decided to stop selling plans in many markets. The current uncertainty surrounding the cost-sharing payments and health care policy more generally, could lead many companies to pull out from the exchanges. Trade groups have already started to warn lawmakers that blocking the payments may cause insurers to drop out of the markets. By June 21, all health insurers will need to decide whether or not they plan to sell insurance on the ACA exchanges next year. This year there are more than 960 counties in the country with just one insurer offering to sell plans on the exchanges, and if companies decide to pull out, several markets could collapse altogether.

Conclusion

As Republicans continue their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Trump may need to make decisions about the current law before he has an opportunity to sign a new law overhauling it. Arguably the most pressing of these challenges is what to do about the lawsuit challenging the cost-sharing subsidy payments. Trump could decide to stop the pending lawsuit and block the payments almost immediately, throwing exchanges that provide insurance to 12 million Americans into chaos. He could continue the current policy–allowing the appeal to move forward and payments to be made to insurers–or he could ask Congress to appropriate the required funding and resolve the issue once and for all.

In the meantime, the subsidy payments will continue to play an important role in legislative negotiations, particularly the funding bill needed to keep the government open past April 28. Meanwhile, insurers must deal with uncertainty as they decide if they want to continue to sell plans on the state and federal exchanges. While much remains in question, the end result will largely be the product of Congressional politics. Both parties seem to think they have the upper hand–assuming the other will be blamed if subsidy payments are blocked and insurers hike premium prices or leave the markets altogether.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Behind the Lawsuit that Could Upend the Affordable Care Act Exchanges appeared first on Law Street.

Although crime is often a major issue in public debate at the local and national level, American perception of crime rates often does not match what the statistics tell us. While violent crime has generally been declining for the past several decades, public opinion polling since the early 1990s shows that most Americans have felt that crime went up in the past year, when more often than not the opposite occurred.

Given this persistent gap between perception and reality as well as false or misleading public statements about crime, it’s particularly important to look at the long-term trends. Law Street’s interactive crime statistics dashboard provides detailed information about crime statistics in America’s largest cities going back to 1985. With it, you can visualize crime trends for any city with available data from the FBI and a population greater than 200,000 people.

The tool clearly illustrates the general downward trend in violent crime since the early 1990s. Here’s a look at the violent crime rate per 100,000 people for the United States as a whole and for all cities with a population over 250,000. As you can see in the chart below, violent crime rates tend to be noticeably higher in large cities relative to the nation as a whole and the decrease that has occurred over the past several decades was primarily concentrated in those cities as well.

When you look at several individual cities, that downward trend is pretty easy to identify. Three major cities with some of the largest percentage decrease in crime rates are New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas, as you can see in the chart below. The 2015 violent crime rates in these three cities dropped by more than half relative to the rates at their respective peaks in the 1990s.

While looking at trends over several decades helps explain how crime rates today compare to the particularly high rates several decades ago, more recent trends are also important. While many cities continue to see their crime rates fall, others have seen modest but significant increases in recent years. This is particularly true when you look at changes in murder rates. The number of murders in large cities saw a notable increase in 2015, which for many cities may be an emerging trend. Here’s a look at a few cities that have seen their murder rates go up for multiple consecutive years.

Although the national murder rate and the rates in the cities detailed above went up in 2015–the most recent year with available data–it’s important to note that the increase did not happen everywhere. In fact, there were several large cities that saw modest decreases in their murder rates. However, the recent changes remain notable even if rates remain near multi-decade lows.

To take a closer look at these cities and to identify trends on your own, check out the new interactive dashboard or read more of Law Street’s Crime in America coverage.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Do Crime Trends Look Like in America’s Largest Cities? appeared first on Law Street.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio likes to repeat the claim that New York City is the “safest big city” in the United States. It’s a superlative that he frequently touts, but when you take a closer look at the underlying evidence behind this assertion, he may be overstating his case. While New York is the safest among America’s very large cities, that only holds true if you look at a particularly small group of highly populated metropolises.

This particular claim is one that Mayor de Blasio repeated last week in a statement responding to the appeals court ruling on President Trump’s executive order on immigration. Here’s the full statement:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just said, ‘No you can’t,’ to the Trump Administration and its un-American travel and refugee bans. Here in New York – the safest big city in America – we will always protect our neighbors, no matter where they came from or when they got here. Those are our values.

And here’s a tweet from last June repeating the same claim:

NYC: Still the safest big city in America. pic.twitter.com/GTktjlcCqL

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 3, 2016

To be fair to de Blasio, there is some subjectivity when it comes to interpreting what he’s saying. Namely, there is no clear, universally accepted definition of what counts as a large city. And assuming he’s talking about population, there is no agreed upon size that makes a city large or small. At Law Street, we set a threshold of at least 200,000 residents to define large cities, but given that de Blasio is mayor of a city with about 8.5 million people, he might only be thinking of a smaller group of very large cities.

So what does the data tell us? When thinking about safety, we typically look to the FBI’s annual crime statistics, which detail the number of violent crimes known to law enforcement in various cities, states, counties, etc. This data, part of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is particularly useful because it provides the same data for nearly every city in the country. To compare between multiple cities, we take the total number of violent crimes–a category that includes murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault–and adjust it by population to calculate a violent crime rate per 100,000 people. In 2015, the most recent full year with FBI data, New York City had a crime rate of 586 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

In order to test Mayor de Blasio’s claim, we need to look at New York in the context of other large cities. If we use the 200,000 population threshold, New York does not have the lowest violent crime rate. Only when you raise the threshold significantly–looking only at cities with populations larger 1.5 million people–does New York have the lowest crime rate.

Using the table below, you can switch between different population thresholds to see how New York’s crime rate stacks up against other cities. Each city’s murder rate per 100,000 people is also included for comparison.

As you can see, using such a narrow definition for what qualifies as a large city means including New York and just five other American cities–Phoenix, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. In the most narrow sense, the Mayor’s claim is accurate when you limit the scope of comparable cities, but you may also want to compare New York to other cities that may not be quite as big. Ultimately, evaluating this claim comes down to how big a city should be in order for it to be compared to the largest one in the country.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Bill de Blasio’s Claim that New York is the “Safest Big City” Overstated? appeared first on Law Street.

At a meeting with leaders of the National Sheriffs’ Association on Tuesday, Donald Trump made a false claim about the U.S. murder rate, a statement that he has repeated several times in the past. The comment came as he was touting the importance of meeting with local sheriffs, something he emphasized given that, as he claims, the murder rate is the highest that is has been in 47 years. But when you look at official FBI data, almost the opposite is true.

Here’s the president’s full statement according to a White House readout of his remarks:

And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years. I used to use that — I’d say that in a speech and everybody was surprised, because the press doesn’t tell it like it is. It wasn’t to their advantage to say that. But the murder rate is the highest it’s been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years.

So, is President Trump right? Is the murder rate at a multi-decade high? If you look at it literally, his claim is false on its face; the murder rate actually remains near historic lows. But if you dig deep enough, there is something unusual about the recent change in the murder rate.

First, let’s take a look at his actual claim. In 2015, the most recent year with available data from the FBI, the U.S. murder rate was 4.9 murders per 100,000 people. The highest murder rate in the last 47 years–the date range selected by President Trump–was in 1980, which had a murder rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people. Put simply, the highest murder rate in the past several decades was more than twice as high as the murder rate in 2015. While it is possible that the murder rate increased slightly in 2016, there is absolutely no evidence that went up by more than 100 percent, which it would need to do for the president’s claim to be true.

Here’s a graph showing how the murder rate has changed over the past 50 years:

With a few exceptions–notably 2015–the murder rate has trended downward for more than two decades. Despite a recent increase in murders, the murder rate remains near the lowest point that it has been in half a century.

Now let’s also take a brief moment to look at where this data comes from, and why it’s the best available to tell us about U.S. crime rates. Each year, the FBI publishes its annual Crime in the United States report, which is created through an extensive collaborative effort between the FBI and nearly every law enforcement agency in the United States. The report includes data from more than 18,000 agencies that cover nearly 98 percent of the U.S. population. This report is the most authoritative collection of crime data in the United States, detailing every criminal offense known to law enforcement.

While the actual claim that Donald Trump made on Tuesday–and also something that he frequently alluded to during the course of his campaign–is false, there is something noteworthy about the 2015 data. Namely, there was a significant increase that year compared to the previous year, a jump of about 11 percent. This single year increase is by far the largest in recent years. But despite that, 4.9 murders per 100,000 people is still lower than the 2009 rate.

Now that doesn’t mean that the recent jump in the murder rate is insignificant, but when it comes to addressing the problem, it may be more helpful to look at what is happening in individual cities. In fact, the number of murders did not increase in every city in 2015, there was significant variation between them. Law Street has an interactive map showing exactly how murder rates changed in America’s largest cities.

While Trump’s claim about the murder rate in the United States is incorrect, if you dig deep enough there is something noteworthy about recent crime statistics. This would be particularly true if the recent increase becomes a trend. It is important to note that the issue with Donald Trump’s claim isn’t just a matter of semantics–what he said is quite different from what actually appears to be important from the most recent crime statistics. Making claims that wildly overstate the number of murders in the United States is not conducive to addressing something that might be a very serious problem if it becomes a persistent trend.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Trump Continues to Make False Claims about the U.S. Murder Rate appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to crime statistics, violent crime tends to get most of the attention. While it’s often easy to overlook property crime because no force is involved, the FBI estimates that $14.3 billion was lost last year because of property crimes. Offenses that the FBI considers property crimes are burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The most expensive property crime is motor vehicle theft, which cost about $7,000 per crime on average in 2015.

According to FBI estimates, there were 707,758 motor vehicle thefts in 2015, causing more than $4.9 billion in losses. While property crime in general decreased last year, the number of motor vehicle thefts went up by 3.1 percent. Despite that increase, the number of vehicle thefts last year was lower than the number in 2011 and represents a decrease of more than 40 percent since 2006.

Because motor vehicle theft is a property crime, these numbers only include offenses where there is no force or threat of force involved. Additionally, because of the FBI’s hierarchy rule, if multiple crimes are committed in the same instance, only the most significant crime (typically if a violent crime is involved), is counted in the reported crime statistics.

The map below illustrates the rate of motor vehicle theft in states across the country.

With a rate of 475 motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 people, California has the highest rate in the nation. Vermont had the lowest rate of motor vehicle thefts, with just 28 per 100,000 people. Following Vermont are nearby Maine and New Hampshire, with 61 and 67 per 100,000 people respectively.

When you look at individual cities, four of the top 20 cities with the highest rates of motor vehicle theft are in California, as shown in the table below–starting with Oakland, California, which had a rate of 1,523 vehicle thefts per 100,000 people in 2015, the highest rate among all cities with more than 100,000 residents. In total, Oakland had 6,389 motor vehicle thefts last year.

The table below shows which cities have the highest rates of motor vehicle theft among cities with a population larger than 100,000 people.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Do Motor Vehicle Theft Rates Look Like Across the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

As Italians prepare to vote, observers prepare for what might be another referendum shock. From the election of Donald Trump to Brexit and the initial referendum on the Colombian peace deal, national votes have had some surprising results in 2016. While the upcoming vote in Italy has some similarities to these other contentious votes, its underlying characteristics also set it apart.

On the ballot is a major set of constitutional reforms that would dramatically change how the legislature works, with the hope of increasing the stability and efficiency of the Italian government. While the vote itself would have dramatic consequences for the Italian government, the outcome might have important implications for the rise of populism in the west and financial stability in the Eurozone. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has already staked his job on the outcome of the vote and ongoing debt issues faced by Italian banks could worsen with little hope of a political fix in the short term.

What is the Referendum?

The reform package involves several major changes to the way the government functions. It would significantly change the nature and size of Italy’s upper chamber–going from 315 senators to 100 lawmakers from a mix of sources. Members of the upper chamber would no longer be elected directly, with 74 councilmen and 21 mayors elected by regional governments and the president appointing the remaining five senators. The chamber would also have significantly less power, as it would lose the ability to conduct votes of no confidence, which dissolve the government and force new elections, and would serve in more of an advisory role for new legislation. The lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies, would gain much more influence and most new laws could be passed without approval from the other chamber, as is currently required.

While even some critics argue that major reforms are necessary, they take issue with the specific measures that have been proposed. Italy has the second largest parliament in Europe with 950 seats and the current system of “perfect bicameralism” requires both houses to agree on legislation before it is passed. The resulting gridlock has made it particularly difficult for the country to pass new legislation, even when it comes to noncontroversial laws. But those who oppose the referendum contend that these fixes are not the reforms that Italy needs, and may make the government vulnerable to authoritarian or populist takeovers.

The current checks and balances were put in place for a reason, as the post-World War II government was established in part to prevent the rise of another authoritarian figure like Mussolini. But the system remains particularly unstable, as the country has gone through 65 governments in 70 years, with only one serving the full five-year term. Critics may agree that the system is not particularly stable, but they argue that the proposed changes to the Senate go against democratic values and put more power in the hand of local governments that have had issues with corruption.

Immediate Consequences

The outcome of the referendum vote may spread beyond Italy. Some speculate that a “no” vote could lead to a crisis in the euro zone. Although there is a two-week polling blackout before the vote, polls conducted before the deadline show that the “no” vote had a sizable lead, although a considerable percentage of voters remained undecided.

If the referendum fails and Prime Minister Renzi resigns, it will likely lead to the appointment of a caretaker government to implement electoral changes for the 2018 election. The current election system uses different rules for both chambers–the new Italicum system essentially guarantees a governing majority to the largest party, but only applies to the Chamber of Deputies–that could result in two different majorities.

Other fears involve the rise of populism in the absence of Prime Minister Renzi. The anti-establishment Five Star Star movement led by former comedian Beppe Grillo has been gaining in popularity and could continue to gain popular support in the power vacuum. The movement has called for a vote to leave the euro and has been very skeptical of Italy’s EU membership in general.

The Looming Banking Crisis

Similarly, the country has had a looming banking crisis for several years that is now starting to peak. Italy was one of the hardest hit countries during the European downturn, with a seven-year recession hitting many important industries. Poor economic conditions and bank mismanagement led to a situation where one-fifth of all loans in the Italian banking system are considered troubled. While the crisis is potentially solvable, any solution requires dealing with some very difficult political decisions. Recent EU banking reforms prevent countries from bailing out their banks without “bailing-in” bondholders and shareholders to ensure that investors bear some of the losses. These laws present a significant challenge because Italian banks’ bondholders include a mix of institutional investors and retail investors. That means that bailing investors in would involve forcing losses on everyday citizens, which would create a significant political problem.

Some argue that a “no” vote would not necessarily lead to a crisis in the euro zone because the European Central Bank will be able to help in the event of a monetary crisis. However, Renzi’s resignation would make it harder for the Italian government to help its ailing banks. While a “yes” vote would put some momentum behind Renzi and his Democratic Party, the government still has a lot of political challenges ahead of it.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political and Financial Instability Looms Over Italian Referendum appeared first on Law Street.

Despite his transition into the White House, President-elect Donald Trump took time out of his day on Sunday to rehash the election results, going so far as to claim that millions of votes were cast illegally. He made the claim without citing evidence and despite an apparent consensus among election monitors that there was no indication of widespread voter fraud.

President-elect Trump’s comments came as popular vote counts began showing Hillary Clinton’s sizable lead in the popular vote. While Clinton lost the electoral college and the election as a result, it looks likely that she will have a popular vote lead of somewhere between 2.5 to 2.7 million votes, or about 2 percent of all votes cast. This appears to have troubled the president-elect, leading to his claim that enough votes were illegally cast to lose the popular vote.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

This unprecedented attack on the legitimacy of the same process that elected him president surprised many, particularly because earlier in the day, Trump sent out a series of tweets denouncing the recount effort organized by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. On Saturday, Trump tweeted that the recount effort was a scam.

The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated & demoralized Dems

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Last week Stein began raising money to fund a recount in multiple key states, and on Friday, announced that she initiated the recount process in Wisconsin. The Clinton campaign said that it would join in the recount effort, although a lawyer for the campaign indicated that he did not expect the process to change the final outcome. However, that appears to have been enough to upset Trump, who went on to criticize Clinton in several tweets. Trump cited Clinton’s concession speech and statements made during the presidential debates to indicate that she was hypocritically challenging the election after criticizing him for doing the same thing during the campaign.

Just a few hours later, Trump claimed that millions of votes were cast illegally and then alleged that voter fraud occurred in several states. He also claimed that if the popular vote determined the outcome of the election he would have campaigned differently and won that as well.

It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4–

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California – so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias – big problem!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2016

Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker at the Washington Post, quickly refuted Trump’s claims and gave his statement a “four-Pinocchio” rating, which is reserved for particularly brazen and false claims. While the exact source of Trump’s statements remains unknown, the claim that millions of non-citizens voted illegally has been making its way around some right-wing media sites.

One of the most notable examples of this argument came from the conspiracy website Infowars, which cited a Twitter user and self-described voter fraud expert who made claims about fraud before election data was even available. The site Infowars is run by Alex Jones, a well-known conspiracy theorist who, among other things, seems to believe that no one died in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. During the campaign, Jones had Trump on his radio show and after the election, he claimed that Trump called to thank him for his support.

Based on all available evidence, claims of widespread voter fraud are false. Trump’s statements have been criticized by independent monitors and election officials alike. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement on Sunday:

It appears that Mr. Trump is troubled by the fact that a growing majority of Americans did not vote for him… His unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud in California and elsewhere are absurd. His reckless tweets are inappropriate and unbecoming of a President-elect.

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative news outlet that coordinated a massive effort to monitor the election across the country, also refuted the claim in a series of tweets.

We had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was “rigged” no matter what Stein or Trump say. /1

— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

Whether Trump genuinely believes that millions of illegal votes were cast or, as many critics speculate, whether he was using his tweets to distract from other potentially damaging reports–such as the conflicts of interest that Trump will face once in the White House–remains to be seen. However, given that the president-elect has openly challenged the legitimacy of the election, it’s possible that his comments may lead to further calls for recounts.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Without Evidence, Donald Trump Suggests Millions Voted Illegally appeared first on Law Street.

Alaska is the most dangerous state based on its violent crime rate for the third year in a row, according to the latest crime statistics from the FBI. The rate of violent crime increased significantly in Alaska last year–going from 636 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2014 to 730 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2015. Following Alaska is Nevada (696 violent crimes per 100,000 people) and New Mexico (656 violent crimes per 100,000 people).

Law Street’s annual slideshow of the Safest and Most Dangerous States ranks all 50 states based on their violent crime rates. Each slide details the violent crime statistics for every city in the country with available data and a population of 25,000 or more. The qualifying cities are listed from highest to lowest rate of violent crime per 100,000 residents for each state. The category of violent crime is comprised of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

GO DIRECTLY TO YOUR STATE:

AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | DC | FL | GA | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE | NV | NH | NJ | NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY

Alaska: #1 Most Dangerous State | 730 Violent Crimes/100,000 People

“Alaska” courtesy of Ryan Schreiber; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The map above will be updated on election night to reflect the election results as they come in. All results will be based on the official Associated Press state projections. Scroll over the map to see when the polls close in each state as well as how many electoral votes are at stake.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 Election Results: State by State Map appeared first on Law Street.

The third and final debate in Las Vegas, Nevada began with a notably different tone compared to previous debates. Chris Wallace, the moderator, guided the candidates through the predetermined categories to address a few of the substantive issues that have gotten little attention throughout much of the election season. But the formality that we saw in the beginning quickly subsided as the questions turned to the legitimacy of the elections and the candidates’ past records.

Here’s a quick rundown of the highlights:

The Show Started Before the Candidates Took the Stage

The circus surrounding the debate got started well before 9 PM on Wednesday when news about debate guests started circulating. Trump’s guests included Malik Obama, President Obama’s half-brother and a Trump supporter, as well as Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. In light of Trump’s similar efforts to shake up the second debate, the Clinton campaign moved to make sure guests and families did not cross paths when entering the stage, which was approved by the debate commission.

But while talk of guests took up much of the attention going into Wednesday’s event, they appeared to have little effect on what happened on stage. While most expected Smith’s attendance to force the issue on Clinton’s response to the Benghazi attack, the topic hardly came up.

Trump Doesn’t Commit to Respecting the Election Outcome

When asked about his recent rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims that the election is “rigged,” Trump continued criticism of incomplete voter registration data, going so far as to indicate that the election may be mishandled. But when Chris Wallace followed up and asked if he would accept the outcome of the election, Trump refused to say yes, responding with “I will look at it at the time.” He later added, “I will keep you in suspense.”

This is a significant reversal from his response to the same question at the first debate and was probably the most striking moment at the entire debate. His response was also striking in light of his statements at the second debate, when he promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and indicated that she belonged in prison. Both of these comments amount to a significant departure from established democratic norms to promote the peaceful transition of power and the nonpartisan rule of law.

Rukmini Callimachi, a New York Times foreign correspondent, has heard that notion before:

8. Trump refuses to say he’ll accept results of election. “I’ll tell you at the time.” (I heard that a lot covering African elections)

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) October 20, 2016

Striking Disagreement on the Economy

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are running on vastly different economic platforms and some of those differences made their way to the forefront in Wednesday’s debate. Trump’s plan to cut taxes, particularly for the highest earning Americans, stood in striking contrast to Clinton’s plan, which would modestly raise taxes for those at the very top. Clinton highlighted her plan to use those new revenues to invest in infrastructure and working families while Trump claimed that his massive tax cuts would unleash unprecedented economic growth. He later dodged questions on his plan’s consequences for the deficit and the national debt, claiming that they wouldn’t matter with all the new jobs he plans to create.

Still No Questions on Climate Change

For the final point here, I’ll highlight something that was missing from tonight’s debate, as well as the two that preceded it. Climate change is an issue that the Democratic Party and nearly all governing parties throughout the rest of the world have agreed is one of the most significant problems facing the world. But in an election to determine the next president of the United States, and arguably one of the most influential people in global climate policy in the next decade, barely any time was devoted to discussing it. President Obama has said of climate change, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” but if you are a voter worrying about how the candidates plan to address it, you were left waiting.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Highlights from the Third Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

With only 19 days until election day, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take the stage Wednesday night for the third and final presidential debate.

Here’s some quick background on the format and timing:

The third and final debate will be hosted by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and will be moderated by Chris Wallace of the Fox News Network. The format will largely resemble the first debate as the two candidates will be seated at a table and will respond to questions from the moderator. Wallace announced the seven categories that his questions will focus on last week, namely: debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy,  the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots, and fitness to be president. The debate starts at 9 PM and will go to 10:30 PM without commercial breaks. You can watch it on the major networks and broadcast channels and it will be streamed online by major news organizations on Youtube and Twitter.

The primary question going into the debate is whether there is anything Donald Trump can do to make up his particularly large polling deficit with Clinton. With that in mind, here is a rundown of the major unanswered questions and continuing challenges to keep an eye out for at the debate.

Trump’s Response to Sexual Assault Allegations

Donald Trump’s treatment of women has been widely discussed throughout the entire campaign, going all the way back to Megyn Kelly’s questioning at the first Republican debate last year. But between the recently uncovered “Access Hollywood” tape and Anderson Cooper’s tough questioning at the second debate, the issue is back in the forefront. When Cooper pressed Trump on the issue–noting that what Trump talked about was sexual assault–he asked whether he had actually done what he said in the video. Trump denied it, saying it was just “locker room talk,” but shortly afterward many woman came forward claiming that Trump had in fact sexually harassed and assaulted them.

With the exception of flatly calling each accusation false when asked for comment, Trump has not yet had to face many questions about the recent allegations. It seems likely that either Chris Wallace or Clinton will bring this up at the debate. It remains unclear exactly how Trump will respond to the issue but it’s certainly something to look out for. Will he continue to deny everything? Will he make any effort to apologize? Or will he continue to try and turn the conversation to Bill Clinton?

Wikileaks

While many of the recent scandals have focused on Trump, the Clinton campaign has had to address questions surrounding Campaign Chairman Jonn Podesta’s leaked emails, which are being released in batches by Wikileaks. While most of the emails provide a window into the inner workings of the campaign and are more embarrassing than anything else, some do point to potential issues. Notably, a batch of emails illustrates a potential ethics issue surrounding donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. As Reuters notes, a $1 million donation pledge from Qatar may have breached Clinton’s ethics agreement at the State Department. Look to see if Clinton tries to address the controversy or if she simply refuses to discuss the hacked information.

In addition to the information found in the emails, it’s important to acknowledge their source. Many security officials believe that the Russian government supplied the hacked emails to Wikileaks. If the recent leaks do come up at tonight’s debate–and it’s pretty likely that they are at least mentioned by Donald Trump–look for how both candidates respond to the prospect of foreign interference in U.S. elections.

What About Policy?

With so much else going on in recent weeks, there’s been a notable lack of discussion of some major policy issues on the campaign trail. Health care got a brief time in the spotlight at the last debate, but despite the quick discussion, there are many unanswered questions. Clinton provided a full-throated defense of Obamacare and laid out a rough plan to help fix some of its core issues, but she has said little about how she would accomplish that if Republicans continue to hold control of all or part of Congress. For his part, Trump offered some sort of discussion about wanting to “break out the lines and allow the competition to come,” but what exactly that means as well as his larger plan to address Americans’ health care concerns remains extremely murky.

We also haven’t heard the candidates talk about crucial issues like climate change, a long-term plan for the ongoing civil war and humanitarian crisis in Syria, and declining productivity growth and dynamism in the U.S. economy. It’s also important to look out for each candidates’ plan to fill the vacant Supreme Court and the possibility that more seats will open during the next president’s term. More broadly, look out for any indication of how the candidates plan to work with Congress to accomplish their goals in the ongoing period of polarization and gridlock.

For some more unanswered questions, check out this list from the New York Times.

 Can Trump Win Over New Voters?

Donald Trump is currently–and pretty much has been since the end of the primary campaign–lagging behind Clinton in the polls. According to most polling averages, Trump has never really had a lead in the general election, with the possible exception of the brief period between the Republican and Democratic conventions. Put simply, Trump doesn’t just need to make sure his core base of support turns out on election day, he needs to court new voters as well. Meanwhile, Clinton has managed to consolidate the support of many undecided voters, though a relatively large number of voters still haven’t made up their minds or plan to vote for third parties.

Recently, Trump has shown almost no interest in expanding beyond his core base of support. He has doubled down on baseless claims that the election is being rigged against him and has said that if he were to become president he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his opponent, an unprecedented breach of the nonpartisan rule of law. While such arguments may play well to Trump’s base–who have very negative views of Clinton–it will likely do little to win over undecided voters.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What to Look Out for at the Final Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

When the FBI released the latest round of national crime statistics, most attention was quickly drawn to the significant rise in the number of murders. Statistics for the 2015 calendar year, released by the FBI on Monday, show that there was an estimated 10.8 percent increase in the number of murders in the United States.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

That jump, as well as the current number of murders in the United States, can be interpreted in many different ways. First, an increase of more than 10 percent is the largest spike in recent history and marks an alarming change almost any way you look at it. What’s particularly troubling is that we don’t yet have a great explanation to account for why this happened.

But the other way to look at it–comparing the murder rate in 2015 to that of previous years–paints a different picture. Despite that dramatic jump, the U.S. murder rate remains near historic lows. In fact, we had fewer murders last year than we did in 2008 and last year’s murder rate, which is adjusted for population, was lower than the one in 2009 despite going up 10 percent. While the jump from 2014 to 2015 was quite large, 2014 had the lowest murder rate in over two decades.

Put simply, you can use the most recent numbers to bolster two very different arguments about crime in America. One approach that might be more helpful is to look at the way in which murder rates change between cities. In fact, change in the murder rates varied widely in America’s largest cities.

The map below details how murder rates changed in the 50 largest cities with two consecutive years of murder statistics available from the FBI. While this does not include each and every one of America’s largest cities, given that not every city’s data is reported by the FBI, it includes almost all of them. The green and red bubbles indicate positive and negative changes, respectively, and the size of the bubble indicates the size of the change. Note that the map shows the percent change in the murder rate from 2014 to 2015, not the actual rate for each city.

Scroll over each city for additional details and change the view by zooming or selecting a region in the filter below the map. To reset the map hit the home button on the top left panel.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Have Murder Rates Changed in America’s Largest Cities? Here’s a Map appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street Media’s comprehensive Crime in America 2017 coverage provides a look at the safety of our cities and towns around the United States. Based on data provided in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Law Street analyzes the data to provide lists of the safest and most dangerous cities around the U.S. Take a look at the rankings and features below to discover how safe your city actually is. Check back regularly for continued reporting and additional features.

Rankings

Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000

Safest Cities Over 200,000

Safest and Most Dangerous States

Interactive Dashboard

Crime Trends in America’s Largest Cities

Charts and Data

NOTES

• What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports
• Methodology

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Irvine, California, and Gilbert, Arizona, remained the two safest cities in the United States with populations over 200,000 for the fourth year in a row. Newcomers to this year’s list included Glendale, California, which previously wasn’t included because its population was below the 200,000 person threshold, and Scottsdale, Arizona, which was not included in the FBI’s statistics last year. While the overall rate of violent crime rose by a small margin in the United States–roughly 3 percent–the safest cities were a mixed bag, with both notable increases and decreases in violent crime rates.

All statistics are based on 2015 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Check out the slideshow below for the Top 10 Most Safest Cities Over 200,000.

Click here for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Click here for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000

#1 Irvine, California

Image courtesy of Orbitgal via Flickr

Irvine topped the list of  Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000 for the fourth year running. Irvine’s violent crime rate did rise by about 14 percent, but it was not enough to drop the California city from the #1 spot on the list. In raw numbers, Irvine only had 24 more violent crimes in 2015 than in 2014. Irvine’s population also rose, by over six percent. Additionally, Irvine saw two murders in 2015, compared to zero in 2014. The increase in the overall count mainly came from the increased instances of robbery, which rose by almost 60 percent to a total of 58.

Violent Crime Rate:  56/100,000 people*
Murder Rate: 1/100,000 people
Population: 258,198
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:1,272
Rank Last Year: #1

—

*Irvine, California switched the way it reports rape incidents during the 2015 calendar year, moving from the FBI’s legacy definition to the FBI’s revised definition, which is more inclusive. For more information about the definition change, click here.

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000 appeared first on Law Street.

Rockford, Illinois, is the most dangerous city in the U.S. with a population between 100,000-200,000 people, displacing Little Rock, Arkansas, which now ranks as #2. Tallahassee, Florida moved onto the list at #8 after just missing the cut at #12 last year; Odessa, Texas also moved from #11 to #9. Many of the rest of the positions held steady and only saw small increases or decreases in their violent crime rates.

All statistics are based on 2015 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Check out the slideshow below for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000.

Click here for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Click here for the Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

#1 Rockford, Illinois

Image courtesy of Alexbaumgarner via Wikimedia Commons

Rockford, Illinois has displaced Little Rock, Arkansas, as the most dangerous city with a population between 100,000-200,000 people. Rockford saw a 28 percent increase in its violent crime rate last year, after a 10 percent decrease the year before. However, Rockford’s murder rate only increased slightly, from 11 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 13 per 100,000 people in 2015. The most dramatic jumps came from increases in the numbers of robbery and aggravated assault, rising by 22 percent and 30 percent respectively.

Violent Crime Rate:  1,585/100,000 people
Murder Rate: 13/100,000 people
Population: 148,178
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:529
Rank Last Year: #2

—

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated to remedy a spelling issue. 

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000 appeared first on Law Street.

St. Louis, Missouri moved from #4 to #1 this year on Law Street’s list of Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 after its violent crime rate rose by more than 8 percent. As violent crime increased nationally by nearly 4 percent, many cities in the top 10 saw substantial increases. Detroit is #2 on this year’s list, moving down after three consecutive years at the top of the list due to an 11.5 percent decrease in its overall violent crime rate. Notably missing from this year’s list is Cleveland, Ohio, which had ranked #8 on last year’s list. The FBI did not provide information for Cleveland this year, and therefore the city cannot be ranked.

All statistics are based on 2015 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Check out the slideshow below for the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000.

CLICK HERE FOR THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES UNDER 200,000

CLICK HERE FOR THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES OVER 200,000

#1  St. Louis, Missouri

Image courtesy of Kevin McCoy via Wikimedia Commons

A significant violent crime spike in St. Louis, Missouri put the city at the top of Law Street’s list of the Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000. The violent crime rate in St. Louis went up by more than 8 percent in 2015, going from 1,679 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2014 to 1,817 per 100,000 last year. That increase moved the city up from the #4 spot in last year’s rankings. St. Louis also saw 29 additional murders in 2015, going from 159 in 2014 to 188 in 2015. The city had a murder rate of 59 murders per 100,000 in 2015. Additionally, the number of robberies and aggravated assaults both experienced notable increases last year, going up 15 percent and 5 percent respectively.

Violent Crime Rate:  1,817/100,000 people
Murder Rate: 59/100,000 people
Population: 317,095
Officer to Population Ratio: 1:258
Rank Last Year: #4

—

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 appeared first on Law Street.

Amid growing fear of terrorism and divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail, researchers have identified a startling upward trend in hate crimes against Muslims. According to a recent study, these crimes have reached their highest levels since the period directly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Brian Levin and Kevin Grisham, researchers at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, identified a slight rise in hate crimes overall but found a significant increase in those targeting Muslims. Using data from law enforcement officials in 20 states, they found 196 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the 2015 calendar year–a 78 percent increase from the previous year. Based on that sample, they estimate that there were approximately 260 hate crimes against Muslims across the country in 2015.

While most categories of hate crime saw either declines or slight increases, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab crimes spiked significantly, increasing by 78 and 209 percent respectively. They also found a 40 percent increase in anti-gender/transgender hate crimes. The 196 anti-Muslim hate crimes identified by the researchers in the 20 states surveyed amounted to a 29 percent increase relative to what the FBI found nationwide in 2014. The evidence for the increase in hate crimes with an Arab and gender bias came from smaller 10 and 9 state samples, respectively.

It’s important to note that these numbers almost certainly undercount the actual number of hate crimes in the United States. Incidents of hate crimes are notoriously difficult to measure–many victims may be reluctant to report these crimes and police departments may not identify hate crimes as such. And as the report notes (and I’ve previously written about), there is a significant gap between the number of reported hate crimes and the results of victimization surveys, which indicate that they occur much more frequently than these statistics suggest.

Last December, the researchers conducted a study of unofficial reports of hate crimes–largely by identifying incidents in news reports–and found evidence of a spike in the wake of the Paris shootings. With this study, they were able to build on their past findings using official data from police departments to identify an overall increase last year. “The newly available official data corroborates the December/November spike found in our earlier study,” they write. “The increase was real and material across the entire year as well.”

Trying to explain what is driving the recent increase is also particularly difficult, as causal connections are difficult to identify. But the authors note that recent rhetoric directed at Muslims is likely a factor. They point to a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes that occurred after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. That spike dropped significantly–although it didn’t go away altogether–after September 17 when President Bush gave a speech at an Islamic center to distinguish terrorism from Islam and called for respect for American Muslims.

In contrast, they note that in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings last year, Donald Trump publicly called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. They note that after that point hate crimes against Muslims increased by 87.5 percent. Overall, the researchers identified a multi-year trend even predating the rise of Donald Trump in American politics.

The authors also note that the causes of hate crimes are extremely complicated. While hostile rhetoric may contribute to an increase in these events, there are many other factors at play. Many factors can contribute to prejudice toward a certain group and an even more complicated set of factors can explain whether a prejudice leads to violence. Ultimately, these statistics cannot provide a full picture of hate crimes in the United States, but they identify a trend that is troubling and difficult to refute.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Research Shows a Recent Surge in Hate Crimes Against Muslims appeared first on Law Street.

Katie Couric, famous journalist and current Yahoo! Global News Anchor, now faces a $12 million lawsuit for her recent documentary “Under the Gun.” The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who were interviewed for the movie and claim that their representation in the film was unfairly edited and amounts to defamation.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), as well as two of its individual members, filed a lawsuit against Couric and others that produced the film in a U.S. District Court in Richmond, in which they argue that a clip of the movie was edited unfairly and constitutes defamation. The lawsuit reportedly seeks $12 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff.

The segment in question involves Couric’s interview with several members of the VCDL, specifically the clip involving a question about their views on background checks for gun purchases. The clip was edited to make it appear as though the plaintiffs were unable to answer a question, when in fact, they quickly responded to Couric.

Here’s the clip as it appeared in the movie:

And here’s the audio from the actual interaction given to the Washington Free Beacon:

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue,

The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks.

It’s pretty obvious that the movie’s editing amounts to a dishonest representation of what happened. The film makes it look like Couric’s question–which asks whether background checks are necessary to prevent terrorists and criminals from purchasing guns–completely stumped the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League whom she was talking to. But when you listen to the actual audio, you notice that the interviewees almost immediately provide a rebuttal. Moreover, the film was edited to show b-roll footage of the VCDL members sitting still for about eight seconds after they were asked the question prior to cutting to the next scene. This added to viewers’ perceptions that they were stumped by the question when, in fact, they quickly responded.

This is also something that Couric herself has admitted. In a statement on the documentary’s website, Couric wrote, “I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.” She continued: “I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.”

Although everyone can agree that the clip was misleading, the question that remains is whether it amounts to defamation. Defamation lawsuits are not easy cases to win. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Couric and the other producers acted with “actual malice.” This means that not only was their work false or misleading, but it also intended to do reputational harm to those in the clip.

A misleading portrayal of someone may be less likely to be considered defamatory compared to showing something insulting about a person that is verifiably false. Defamation claims also need “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims, a relatively high standard for the burden of proof.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stephanie Soechtig, the movie’s director who is also named in the suit, told CNN:

It’s ironic that people who so passionately defend the Second Amendment want to trample the rights guaranteed to a filmmaker under the First. Stephanie stands by ‘Under the Gun’ and will not stop her work on behalf of victims of gun violence

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit for Gun Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

After an unsuccessful civil lawsuit against the Cinemark theater where the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting took place, the victims and their families may be forced to pay the opposing side’s legal fees. Those fees could cost nearly $700,000, according to recent court filings identified by the Denver Post.

In the wake of the Aurora shooting, which left 12 dead and more than 70 injured, many of the survivors and the families of those who were killed filed a civil lawsuit in a Colorado state court against the movie theater, arguing that its security provisions failed to protect the victims. The shooter, James Holmes, was sentenced to 12 consecutive life sentences for the crime.

The victims’ lawyers argued that the theater failed in its responsibility to secure the building, citing a lack of video surveillance, security guards, and silent alarms on exit doors–which is what the shooter used to enter the theater. They also noted that prior to the shooting the Department of Homeland Security warned movie theaters that they might be the target of terrorist attacks.

In response, Cinemark argued that the responsibility for the shooting ultimately lies with the shooter. It claimed that there was no way for the theater to foresee such a meticulously planned attack. Ultimately, a six-person jury sided with the company.

A similar lawsuit in a federal court decided in Cinemark’s favor as well and concluded that the company was entitled to recoup some legal costs, though Cinemark has not yet requested an amount in that case. Many of the victims settled with the company prior to the ruling, telling the Denver Post that potentially being on the hook for legal costs contributed to the decision.

Colorado law allows parties that succeed in civil lawsuits to recover legal costs, leading Cinemark to file a motion to bill the victims for $699,187.13 in expenses. But filing the motion does not mean that the company will get all of what it requested, a decision that requires a judge’s approval. In response to the company’s request, Marc Bern, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyer told the Wall Street Journal that the amount “is an outrageous attempt to keep the plaintiffs from appealing.” And while the company is entitled to recoup the costs, seeking money from the victims of a mass shooting may not be a great decision from  a public relations standpoint.

An editorial from the Denver Post claims that this outcome may actually be preferable because it could put an end to what it considers to be a misguided lawsuit. The Post’s editorial board argues that, ideally, the victims will drop the case and not appeal while Cinemark will retract its demand for the $700,000 in legal fees.  

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cinemark Asks for $700,000 in Legal Fees from Aurora Shooting Victims appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department plans to end its use of private prisons for federal prisoners, according to a memo from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates released on Thursday. According to Yates, the Department of Justice plans to either not renew existing private prison contracts or significantly reduce the scope of the agreements in the coming years. Over time, this will end the use of private prisons at the federal level, but that’s only part of the picture. Let’s take a closer look at what this means.

Why Now?

The decision comes less than a week after the Office of the Inspector General released a harsh report about the quality of these contract prisons. According to the report, “in most key areas, contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions and that the BOP needs to improve how it monitors contract prisons in several areas.” The announcement also comes on the heels of an investigation from Mother Jones, which involved a reporter going undercover for multiple months in a Louisiana private prison. That story highlighted many of the security concerns involved with private prisons as well as the way that the profit motive can negatively affect prison conditions.

In her memo, Yates also points out that this move is in part a response to recent progress shrinking the size of the federal prison population. The use of private prisons was largely a product of the massive increase in federal prisoners over the past several decades. But 2014 marked the first year in which the number of federal prisoners actually decreased. The chart below shows the massive growth in the number of federal prisoners since 1980.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, CSTAT

In 2013, the Department of Justice began its Smart on Crime Initiative, which sought to improve fairness and efficiency in the criminal justice system. An important part of the initiative was sentencing reform, which sought to ensure that sentence lengths were appropriate, particularly for nonviolent criminals. The new sentencing guidelines later became retroactive for drug offenders, which allowed inmates to challenge their sentence and get it reduced if approved by a judge. As a result, the DOJ hopes that the recent prison population decline will become a sustained trend, which in turn will reduce the need for private prisons.

How Many Prisoners Does This Affect?

While we know that the federal prison population has grown significantly over the past couple decades, how many of those prisoners are held in private prisons? Currently, private prisons account for about 11 percent of all federal prisoners, or about 22,100 prisoners. There are 13 private prisons used by the federal government, which will now be phased out over the next several years. But it’s important to note that most of the prisoners held in private prisons are at the state level. Here’s a look at the use of private prisons by states and the federal government since 1999:

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, CSTAT

What This Won’t Change

As you can see in the chart above, states use private prisons a lot more than the federal government and that won’t change with the DOJ’s recent decision. Another prominent use of private prisons is immigrant detention, which is overseen by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Marshalls Service. Because immigration detention is not overseen by the DOJ, this decision will also not affect those facilities.

Simply put, this decision will not affect the majority of inmates in private prisons. But that doesn’t mean that the DOJ’s move will have no effect. In her memo, Assistant Attorney General Yates notes:

Private prisons served an important role during a difficult period, but time has shown that they compare poorly to our own Bureau facilities. They simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs, and resources; they do not save substantially on costs; and as noted in a recent report by the Department’ s Office oflnspector General, they do not maintain the same level of safety and security.

While she compares private facilities to the ones operated by the Bureau of Prisons, her comments amount to a strong statement against these prisons. Having a clear federal policy to stop using these facilities on the grounds that they are inferior to publicly controlled prisons may send a message to states to reconsider their private contracts. And shortly after the decision was announced on Thursday, Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group–the two largest private prison companies–saw their stock prices plummet.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ to Phase Out Private Prisons: Here’s What That Means appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a joke going around online that makes fun of one of the dominant explanations for Donald Trump’s rise in American politics. You’ll see it a lot on social media: people will take a news story depicting what can only be described as racism, and then joke about how economic anxiety explains support for Trump when clearly it’s not related.

Here’s a good, relatively mild joke about the Confederate flag from Jamelle Bouie, a writer for Slate:

Just some Trump supporters, waving the flag of economic anxiety. https://t.co/6RlnATpvSK

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) July 26, 2016

The joke here is, of course, that a lot of Donald Trump’s support has little to do with an individual’s economic circumstances. Shortly after Trump started rising in the polls during the Republican primary, the “economic anxiety hypothesis” was a dominant explanation for his success. Trump, the theory goes, speaks to those who have been left behind by globalization and free trade. And to an extent, that explanation makes sense–Trump constantly trashes “bad trade deals,” threatens companies that want to move jobs overseas, and claims that his economic agenda will focus on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

But over time, it has become pretty clear that economics can only explain so much of Trump’s support, so something else must to be at play too. So what, then, explains the rise of populism not just in the United States, but also in many countries in Western Europe? With Trump’s rise in American politics, Brexit in the United Kindom, and growing anti-immigrant sentiment growing as Europe’s refugee crisis surges, answering this question is more important than ever. Is it simply racism or is there more to it than that?

As it turns out, we have some new research that takes a look at that question specifically. Professors Ronald Inglehart from the University of Michigan and Pippa Norris from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government took a systematic look at two hypothesis–the economic insecurity and cultural backlash hypotheses–in their recent working paper to see what’s really going on.

Identifying the Rise of Populism

While their research focuses primarily on the rise of populism in Western Europe, they argue that the developments in Europe can help inform what is going on in American politics today. In their research, Inglehart and Norris identify populist parties in Europe, track their rise in many countries, and look at what factors led voters to support them.

Inglehart and Norris identify several patterns that illustrate and help explain the rise of populism in Western Europe over the past several decades. First, and most obviously, more votes were cast for populist parties, causing their representation in governments to increase. Candidates in populist parties on the right and left of the economic spectrum increased dramatically from the 1960s to the 2010s. Vote share for parties on the populist right rose from 6.7 percent in the 1960s to 13.4 percent in the 2010s, according to ParlGov data, which tracks voting patterns in many western democracies. Similarly, vote share for populist left parties rose from 2.4 percent in the 1960s to 12.7 in the 2010s. They also note that over time, cultural issues have become much more important to political parties than economic ones have.

What’s unique about the researchers’ analysis is their use of a cultural dimension to locate different parties on an ideological spectrum. Most people are familiar with the traditional left and right dimension, where right is conservative and left is liberal. But Inglehart and Norris build on that to argue that the traditional spectrum really only applies to economic issues, while a new axis should be added to capture how people divide on cultural issues. On this vertical axis, they put liberal cosmopolitanism at the bottom and populism at the top. In doing so, they acknowledge that populism has more to do with cultural values and that populist parties can pop up on both the right and left of the economic spectrum.

Defining Populism

Now, without diving too much into the jargon, it’s important to look at how the researchers define populism and its inverse, cosmopolitan liberalism. The researchers draw from past research to summarize populism as having three distinct characteristics: anti-establishment sentiment, authoritarianism, and nativism. Because populism can emerge on both the right and left sides of the economic spectrum, it’s helpful to think about it in terms of the values that stay constant, which are largely cultural. They conclude:

Populism favors mono-culturalism over multiculturalism, national self-interest over international cooperation and development aid, closed borders over the free flow of peoples, ideas, labor and capital, and traditionalism over progressive and liberal social values.

Cosmopolitan liberalism, on the other side of the spectrum, is essentially the opposite of that–favoring open borders, shared values, and diversity. Importantly, the researchers go on to note, “Social liberalism is also linked with support for equal rights for women and minorities, flexible rather than fixed gender roles, fluid gender identities and LGBT rights, environmental protection, and secular rather than religious values.” And with that, you have the crux of the cultural backlash hypothesis; as the issues that define cosmopolitan liberalism have taken hold in the West, populist parties may be popping up as a result.

After analyzing polling data, the researchers concluded that the cultural backlash hypothesis appears to explain the rise of populism more so than economic circumstances or perceived economic insecurity. They found a connection between different demographic characteristics, notably age and education levels, that was associated with voting for populist parties, but when you combine those demographics with cultural values, a clear fit exists. And while there was some overlap between economic insecurity and populist voting, culture appears to play a stronger role. They conclude, “The electoral success of [populist] parties at the ballot box can be attributed mainly to their ideological and issue appeals to traditional values.”

What Does it Tell Us About Trump?

Inglehart and Norris use culture to explain what happened over the past several years in many western European countries and go on to say that the same thing is likely underway in the United States. Populism in America appears to be following a similar trajectory, and if you look at the base of Donald Trump’s support you will see a similar group of values and demographics. As more evidence piles up to challenge the economic anxiety explanation, it’s important to look at how cultural views shape support for populists.

And yes, race or racial resentment likely plays into this as well. If you doubt that connection then you should watch this video from the New York Times showing the presence of hate at Trump rallies. But it’s too simplistic to just chalk things up to racism. As Brian Beutler at the New Republic points out, Trump has millions of supporters–probably somewhere around 40 to 45 percent of the American electorate–so assuming that they all plan to vote for him because they’re all racist is a stretch. But you’d also be ignoring a lot about Trump’s campaign over the past year or so to say that race hasn’t played a role.

As the West continues to move in a liberal cosmopolitan direction, there will be large swaths of people who lash out at social change through support for populist parties and candidates. In Europe, this backlash has been more pronounced as proportionally representative parliamentary systems make it easier for new parties to earn seats in government, but it’s clear that the United States is not immune.

These findings may be discouraging for many. After all, those who pushed for progress on issues like gay marriage and immigration didn’t anticipate Donald Trump in response. But understanding this pattern is important. Inglehart and Norris conclude: “The net result is that Western societies face more unpredictable contests, anti-establishment populist challenges to the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and potential disruptions to long-established patterns of party competition.” These challenges are real, and they probably aren’t going away anytime soon.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Populism, How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina voting law on Friday, concluding that it was passed with clear “discriminatory intent.”

The ruling forcefully reversed a district court finding that did not acknowledge the law’s intent to discriminate. In the ruling, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gibbon Motz writes,

In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

Motz, also writing for judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd, goes on to note that the sequence of events that led to the law provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the law intentionally sought to restrict voting rights of African American voters in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.

While many argue that voting laws like the one in North Carolina are passed for partisan reasons–by focusing on minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats, Republican legislators may be seeking an electoral edge–the way this law in particular targeted race amounts to racial discrimination. And yes, challenges to these laws could also be considered partisan efforts on behalf of the Democrats as well, but the racial focus here appears to take it a step further.

A Quick Look at the Voting Rights Act

To understand this case in North Carolina, it’s important to understand the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 to ensure that African Americans and all minority voters would not be discriminated against at the polls.

The law took a particularly active approach to dealing with an enormous challenge. It created a formula to identify states and locales where voting was polarized by race and then added additional safeguards to changing voting laws there. Section 4 of the law created that so-called “coverage formula,” and coupled it with a preclearance requirement in Section 5. That requirement mandated that state and local governments falling within the coverage formula get explicit approval from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws.

The law also maintains provisions to ensure that race-based discrimination does not happen and places redistricting requirements on states to ensure minority representation, among other protections. But the preclearance requirement and coverage formula took the center of attention in an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013. That case, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula and ended the preclearance system as it existed at the time. Justice Roberts, who wrote the 5-4 opinion, concluded that the law employed “extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem,” but that those measures are no longer needed. He went on to argue that the coverage formula used to determine which areas require preclearance now violates states’ rights and equal sovereignty as laid out in the 10th Amendment.

Since that ruling, governments have been free to change their voting laws as they see fit without the need for preclearance from the Justice Department. And that brings us to the recent challenge in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Ruling

Judge Motz notes in the ruling that between 2000 and 2012–a period when preclearance was needed for to all statewide and many local voting law changes in North Carolina–registration and participation surged among black voters. By 2012, black voter registration had increased by about 50 percent and turnout nearly reached parity with that of white voters, at about 70 percent. But shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County ruling, the state assembly began the process to overhaul its voting laws. According to the ruling, the new law would have several effects on black voters in the coming November election:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

In cases like this, it is particularly difficult to prove that a legislature acted with discriminatory intent, but the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that race was central to the new law. That holds true, according to Motz, even if it was done for partisan reasons and not outright racial hatred or racism. The ruling notes that almost immediately after the Shelby County opinion came down in June 2013, the North Carolina legislature began drafting new voting restrictions. It also notes:

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

This indicates that shortly after the state did not need preclearance to pass a new voting law, it looked into how certain voting practices related to race, and then passed a new law limiting certain practices. Based on that sequence of events, the court ruled there was clear intent to discriminate based on race.

Going Forward

While the ruling effectively struck down the law, the court declined to use another section of the Voting Rights Act to impose a preclearance requirement on North Carolina after finding discriminatory intent. Essentially, it chose not to reinstate the preclearance requirement on the state using a different part of the VRA. As Rick Hasen–a law professor at University of California, Irvine–notes in a blog post, the state can still appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit en banc, which means that all of the judges, not just the original panel of three judges, would review the case. It could also appeal to the Supreme Court, but as Hasen notes, the court may not decide to hear the case given its current eight justice makeup and the Circuit Court’s decision not to implement a preclearance requirement.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why A Circuit Court Struck Down North Carolina’s Discriminatory Voting Law appeared first on Law Street.

As attention turns to the Democratic Party while it hosts its convention this week, Donald Trump made a move to take back some of the spotlight. In a bizarre press conference, often featuring Trump’s stream of consciousness speaking style, he suggested that Russia should seek out Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails–in effect, asking a foreign nation to spy on the email correspondence of a U.S. secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said–referring to an estimated 30,000 emails that were deleted from Clinton’s email server before it was turned over to the FBI.

Here’s the clip from C-SPAN for some additional context:

Donald Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”https://t.co/XHc9hh4gBt

— CSPAN (@cspan) July 27, 2016

His comments come at a striking time: a recent hack of the Democratic Party’s servers led to a massive release of internal emails sent by party leaders. The emails were published by WikiLeaks and although the source of the hack remains unknown, cyber security experts and American intelligence agencies strongly suspect that Russians were involved.

However, at his press conference on Wednesday, Trump noted that no one knows for sure who was behind the attack and argued that Russia probably wasn’t involved. He also took the opportunity to call the current Democratic leadership weak, noting that if Russias were involved, the hack shows that they don’t respect the U.S. government.

Interestingly, shortly after Trump made his comments at the press conference, his running mate–Indiana Governor Mike Pence–issued a statement saying, “If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences.” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a similar statement denouncing any potential Russian involvement. “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election,” a spokesperson for Paul Ryan said.

The leak has been particularly embarrassing for the Democratic Party. The emails provided evidence that, among other things, the party failed to live up to its neutrality claims in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Shortly after the documents were released, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz resigned and the rift between the Democratic Party and many Bernie Sanders supporters deepened.

Given the timing of the DNC email leak and its potential ties to the Russian government, many are deeply concerned that it reflects an effort by a foreign government to influence the outcome of a major American election. The decision to release the emails shortly before the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia appears to have been made to have the largest political effect. Indeed, the scandal may have added to many voters dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party and its handling of the primary campaign, which recently culminated in protests at the party’s convention early this week.

Meanwhile, Trump appears to have doubled down on his call for Russia to find Clinton’s deleted emails. Shortly after his speech, Trump sent out the following Tweet:

If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2016

The Clinton campaign recently started suggesting that Trump’s relationship with Russia may be cause for concern. “He certainly has a bromance with Mr. Putin,” Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta said of Trump on Tuesday. But when asked, Trump quickly said he had no business dealings in Russia. And Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, recently labeled the implication that Trump has ties with the Russian government “absurd.”

Whether Trump’s recent comments are merely a way to steal attention away from Clinton during her party’s convention or if–to borrow a phrase from Trump–“something else is going on,” well, that’s for you to decide.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Calls on Russia to Find Clinton’s Deleted Emails appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, Donald Trump formally accepted the Republican nomination for president in Cleveland. In his acceptance speech Trump made one thing abundantly clear: he promises to be the law and order candidate. But with that promise came the need for justification: why do we need a law and order president? Trump sought to answer that question and more by painting a particularly bleak picture of America.

Let’s take a closer look at some of Trump’s claims and put them in some much-needed context. The quotes below are taken from his prepared remarks obtained by Politico Thursday afternoon. The transcript is nearly identical to the actual speech but may have some slight differences.

Where are our violent crime numbers?

Donald Trump started his speech with some stark claims about crime in the United States:

Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years.

The 17 percent claim appears to come from a Washington Post analysis that was published earlier this year. The Post looked at preliminary crime data from 50 of the largest American cities and found that murders increased by about 17 percent in 2015. So yes, it does appear that there is an increase in homicides and there may even be an uptick in violent crime–we’ll know for sure when the FBI releases its formal statistics this fall. But it’s also important to keep this development in context.

Even with a few years of a crime spike, America is much safer than it was a two decades ago. In fact, the violent crime rate has dropped precipitously over the last 25 years. As the chart below shows, the violent crime rate has dropped by about 43 percent between 1995 and 2014. While we don’t have more recent data, it is particularly unlikely that we have reversed many of those gains within the last year and a half. We may be experiencing a spike in violent crime right now, but we currently have no indication that it will lead to a multiyear trend of increasing crime rates.

The chart below shows how violent crime has dropped over the past several decades. Note that the Y-Axis does not start at zero, rather it starts at 300 to better illustrate the relationship between each point.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report

Trump specifically spoke about murder rates, which have also fallen in a similar fashion. In 1995 there were 8.2 murders per 100,000 people. In 2014 the rate was 4.5. The uptick identified by the Washington Post is certainly troubling, but that too must be taken in context. Trump accurately characterized the 17 percent spike as the largest change in the past 25 years. But as the Post points out, last year’s homicide rate remains below where it was in 2008 and not every city saw an increase. Of the largest 50 cities, 36 saw an increase in murders while 14 experienced a decrease or no change.

What about Chicago?

Trump went on to note that the number of shootings in Chicago is particularly high this year:

In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.

This statistic also appears to be true. According to the Chicago Tribune’s count, there have been 2,224 shooting victims between the beginning of the year and July 22. Last year there was 2,988 shootings in total, meaning that this year will likely surpass that final count.

There does appear to be a real problem with gun violence and homicides in many American cities. We do not have enough data to say whether this is a durable trend or just an uptick, but even accounting for an increase, violence remains near historic lows. We also don’t know what is responsible for the recent developments, as many competing theories have been thrown around. It is a complex and multifaceted problem that many local police departments will need to address.

Police in America

Trump also argued that law enforcement deaths are increasing:

The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.

According to the Officer Down Memorial page, which tracks police deaths as they happen, there have been 68 police officers killed in the line of duty so far this year, a 1 percent decrease. The National Law Enforcement Memorials Fund also keeps an independent count of officer deaths. According to the NLEMF’s data, there were 63 officer deaths at this point last year and there are 67 this year–a 6 percent increase. Both of those total counts include accidental deaths, but they also note that firearm-related deaths are up in 2016. A large part of that increase came in two recent high-profile attacks on police in Dallas, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

After the Dallas attack, we noted that the resulting five officers deaths amounted to about 10 percent of the previous year’s total. According to preliminary numbers from the FBI, which specifically tracks felonious deaths, there were 42 officers killed in 2015. While the next round of FBI statistics on officer deaths and assaults in the line of duty will be particularly useful to inform these debates, the general trend has been going downward. For more, you can read our article titled, “What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty”

Donald Trump went on to make several additional claims in his speech that have since been rigorously fact-checked. While Trump’s crime-related claims are directionally accurate, it is important to look at the surrounding context. Much of Trump’s speech seemed to hinge on whether or not the rule of law is breaking down in the United States. He argues that it has and that is why he is campaigning as the law and order candidate. However, despite a recent spike in murders and possibly violent crime, those rates remain near modern lows. Similarly, the number of police officers killed and assaulted has been declining over the past several years. While some of that progress may have been reversed temporarily, it’s important to ask whether that represents a durable trend or if it is simply a temporary uptick.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the World as Scary as Donald Trump Says it is? appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the first day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Kevin Rizzo and Alec Siegel:

Day 1’s theme was Making America Safe Again. And the Republican National Convention in Cleveland started off with an unusual bout of excitement. In a day filled with a range of speakers, from senators, to Melania Trump, and even Scott Baio, a lot of the excitement happened before the prime time speakers took stage.

The Rules Fight

In a last ditch effort to thwart the nomination of Donald Trump, a group of delegates attempted to force a roll call vote instead of a voice vote to accept the party rules. Chants erupted on the convention floor after three state delegations reportedly dropped their support of a measure to change the voting procedure used to approve the party rules.

Although the effort had little chance of success, it amounted to a rare show of disunity and chaos on the convention floor. It also wasn’t the only time a voice vote caused an uproar on Monday. In a largely symbolic vote to make Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell temporary chairman, the “nays” appeared to have outbid the “ayes,” yet Reince Priebus, the acting chair, concluded that the “ayes” won.

in a voice vote just now to name Mitch McConnell temporary chairman, the Nays were arguably louder. Priebus said the Ayes won.

— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) July 18, 2016

Alec Has a Weird Pierogi Run In

Quicken Loans Perimeter: Pierogi and Press. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

Monday evening, reporters were still scrambling over the grounds on the perimeter, scrounging for last-minute food before the dive into Quicken Loans. Pierogi–pillows of dough filled with cheese–were being sold at one popular concession tent, a nod to Cleveland’s large Polish population. A moment that seems to sum up the caffeine fueled, sleep-less nature of the convention: a reporter from a TV outlet stumbled up to me–overcome by the smell of my delicious pierogi–and asked where he could get some. I told him I was the last sale of the night. Tears welling up in his eyes, he said, “I’m gonna pass out if I don’t eat,” and ambled off, mic and camera cord dragging behind him.

We Weren’t Allowed to Bring our Drones in

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Rudy Giuliani Gets the Crowd Going

All of Monday night’s speakers were well received by the audience, but no one got the crowd louder than former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The theme was “Make America Safe Again” and Giuliani touched on the Republicans’ greatest hits. From a full-throated defense of American police officers to a long tirade decrying radical islamic terrorism, everyone in the crowd stood as he spoke.

Giuliani gets the crowd to the loudest volume of the night with his defense of police officers #RNCinCLEpic.twitter.com/gw2LaLruIt

— Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) July 19, 2016

While it was certainly an exciting speech, it’s also important to take a closer look at what many of the speakers were describing on Monday night. The theme was “Make America Safe Again” and with that came many references to crime rates and policing. But what many might not recognize is that violent crime has dropped precipitously over the past several decades. The United States today has considerably less violent crime than it did a couple decades ago.

Here’s a graph from Gallup that shows how public opinion and the reality of crime rates are often far apart. For years, many people believed that violent crime was increasing while, in fact, it was consistently going down. So the convention speakers’ calls for law and order may be doing more to evoke emotion than accurately describing the facts on the ground.

Liberal Bashing was Visible

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

There were plenty of jabs at Hillary, too.

“Hillary Clinton wants to be the president of Hillary Clinton”-Scott Baio #RNCinCLE

— Alec Siegel (@beardedbard92) July 19, 2016

“Hillary loves her pantsuits…but we should send her an email saying she deserves an orange jumpsuit” #RNCinCLE

— Alec Siegel (@beardedbard92) July 19, 2016

A Little Bit of Plagiarism?

Melania Trump was the headline speaker on Monday night, even receiving an introduction from none other than Donald Trump. Also of note, Trump’s intro may have been his shortest public speaking appearance yet in the campaign. While brief, Trump’s appearance came with his fair share of fanfare–he walked out to “We Are the Champions” and exclaimed “we’re gonna win so big” upon taking the podium. But everyone was there to see Mrs. Trump, a point that became clear as the crowd almost immediately filed out when she was done speaking.

Although Melania Trump’s speech appeared to go off without a hitch, a short while after after her speech some “striking similarities” were recognized between her remarks and Michelle Obama’s famous address at the Democratic Convention in 2008. You can see for yourself:

So that’s pretty blatant, right? pic.twitter.com/EPnHME7afV

— Mike Hearn (@mikehearn) July 19, 2016

Texas’s Delegates Win Alec’s Fashion Awards for Day 1

Texas state delegates were hard to miss. They showed up in their state costume: a cowboy hat and a red, white, and blue collared shirt. Some wore jeans. Toward the end of the night, one Texas cowboy walked off into the night in a cowboy hat and skirt. A red, white and blue skirt, to be specific, and he had his dog at his side, also decked out in patriotic hues.

The Texas Delegates Are Not Messing Around At The RNC! #NeverTrump #CruzCrew pic.twitter.com/Tg6A2UDMiE

— DLW (@Dlw20161950) July 18, 2016

You Couldn’t Miss the Police Presence

Police presence at the exits. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

And in what is probably convention tradition, but especially amplified in light of the last few tumultuous weeks, sheriffs and police certainly made their presence known on Day 1. Brawny clumps of men with badges and sheriffs hats watched the proceedings from the perimeter on the TV screen. After Melania Trump spoke, most of the attendees spilled out from the “Q” (The cordoned off area where reporters and delegates are allowed–Quicken Loans and its perimeter).

The mass of us wound through a fenced off maze, finally spilling out onto East Fourth Street, an alleyway of restaurants and bars, many rented out for the week from news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post. Police formed a human boundary on both sides as we made our way from the “Q,” into the Cleveland night, off to get some sleep for day two.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the RNC?: Law Street’s Day 1 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

As high-profile police shootings continue to hold the nation’s attention, a new study on the extent of racial bias in police officers’ use of force is making some big waves. In fact, this research comes to a particularly surprising conclusion: the police are actually less likely to shoot black civilians. But there are some important details to work through before we jump to any conclusions.

The study, conducted by renowned Harvard economist Roland Fryer, did identify some significant bias in the way police officers use force. This is a bias that exists at nearly all levels–like putting hands on a civilian, pushing a person up against a wall, using handcuffs on someone without arresting them, and even using pepper spray or a baton–but when it comes to lethal force, the most severe of all, police may actually be slightly less likely to kill black civilians.

But before we jump to conclusions or even accept that conclusion on its face, it’s important to sort through a large number of methodological nuance to understand what we can take away from this research. Fair warning, if you came here looking for a clear-cut conclusion, you’ll have to read the rest of this article to get the full picture.

Some Background

First, it’s important to point out that Roland Fryer’s study involved a significant undertaking by a team of researchers. And Fryer himself certainly wasn’t expecting the final conclusion. “It is the most surprising result of my career,” Fryer told the New York Times. The research is also still a working paper, which means that it hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed and published in a formal journal. It was put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research for experts in the field to look at and discuss its findings prior to a more formal release.

The debate about police shootings is one that has notoriously had a lack of hard data to discuss. We simply don’t have good statistics on the number and characteristics of incidents when police officers used lethal force. Independent counts have started to fill this gap–of note are the Washington Post’s database of police shootings and the Guardian’s “The Counted” project–but there is little national data with the depth necessary to identify bias. With this research, Fryer and his team provide some important analysis to a discussion that has few statistics to draw from.

A look at the methods

So let’s take a closer look at the data and how it was used. To measure racial bias when it comes to all levels of force the researchers looked at statistics provided by several police departments, notably New York City’s “stop, question and frisk” program, as well as nationally representative survey data that measures interactions with the police. To look at the use of lethal force–officer-involved shootings–the researchers had to assemble their own dataset from 10 police departments in three states. The researchers managed to get a particularly interesting dataset from the Houston police department, which provided a large number of reports on interactions between police and civilians.

Of that Houston dataset, the researchers took a random sample of files with “arrests codes in which lethal force is more likely to be justified: attempted capital murder of a public safety officer, aggravated assault on a public safety officer, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and interfering in arrest.” However, this data was unique to the Houston police department. The other police departments could only give details for instances when lethal force was used, but we would need data about when officers decided not to use force in order to properly identify the effects of bias.

The conclusions and what they mean

First, it’s important to note that the researchers only look at actual interactions between officers and civilians. This means that the study does not engage with one important racial bias in policing–that officers are more likely to stop and interact with black civilians than white civilians.

That caveat aside, when it comes to the lethal use of force, here’s how Fryer summarizes his findings:

Using data from Houston, Texas–where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified–we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites.

The researchers used the raw data referenced in the quote and then controlled for a range of factors–civilian behavior, possession of a weapon, the situational context, and much more–but still found no presence of bias in the use of lethal force by the Houston police department.

Importantly, this is only based on the Houston data, so while we may be able to conclude that officer-involved shootings in Houston are not subject to racial bias, we cannot really take that to mean that the same holds true nationally or for any other police department. Even then, this conclusion rests on the researchers’ ability to control for several important variables like behavior and context.

It is also important to note that this data came from police officer summaries of their interactions with civilians. While we cannot cast doubt on an entire police department, there have been several cases where the story provided by police officers has been refuted with video evidence.

Police officers’ bias in nonlethal force

Looking beyond lethal force, Fryer and his team found persistent racial bias at all other levels of force. Using the New York City Police Department’s data on its stop and frisk program between 2003 and 2013, the researchers found a notable relationship between race and the use of force. After controlling for as many variables as possible, the researchers note that black civilians are 17 percent more likely to be subject to the use of force than white civilians. For Hispanics, the rate was 12 percent higher than for white people.

Interestingly, this pattern largely remained consistent at a range of different levels. The lowest level of force measured–officers laying their hands on a subject–occurred much more frequently than the highest–using pepper spray or a baton. But the rate at which minority civilians incur the use of force largely remained consistent at all levels short of lethal force. As Fryer puts it, “The use of high levels of force in these data are rare. Yet, it is consistently rarer for whites relative to blacks.” What’s particularly interesting about this is that the researchers managed to find bias in data collected and provided by the NYPD itself.

The researchers also looked at a nationally representative survey to identify the extent to which racial bias exists in these interactions. Using data from the Police-Public Contact Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they found even larger differences in the use of force by race. While the researchers note that the rate at which officers used force was considerably lower in the survey data–about 15 percent of white civilians experienced the use of force in the stop and frisk data while only 1 percent reported experiencing force in the survey data–a pattern of bias remains for different racial groups. They conclude:

Differences in quantitative magnitudes aside, the PPCS paints a similar portrait–large racial differences in police use of force that cannot be explained using a large and varied set of controls.

After looking over his research, Fryer argues that police may act according to perceived costs. He suggests that there may not be racial bias in the use of lethal force because doing so is particularly costly–there is often internal reviews and the decision to shoot someone can have profound life consequences for the police officer as well as the victim. However, the same costs may not exist when using nonlethal force. Fryer argues that if we wish to reduce racial bias for lower levels of force, we should increase the costs associated with using them. Put simply, if we want to reduce this bias, police need to feel that they will be held accountable for unnecessarily using force.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Does Racial Bias Affect Police Officers’ Use of Force? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court handed down several major rulings yesterday and, as is the case whenever the court decides to weigh in on a social issue, a lot of people got really mad. While watching people get angry on social media is always good fun on its own, this time, there was an added level of entertainment as people tweeted their dissatisfaction at SCOTUSblog’s twitter account, thinking that it was the actual Supreme Court.

SCOTUSblog, a website dedicated to tracking all things related to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), is not, in fact, operated by or in any way affiliated with the actual Supreme Court. But that doesn’t stop the flood of angry Twitter mentions that it receives at the end of each court term. In fact, its Twitter bio features a nice disclaimer, “A private blog. NOT THE JUSTICES OR THE COURT.” Thankfully, its Twitter account sets aside some time on each of these special nights to respond to many of the mistaken Twitter users.

On Monday afternoon, it started off with a warning to its current followers (who are presumably aware that it is not the actual Supreme Court) as well as some satire to set the scene:

You have one minute to unfollow us before we fill your Twitter feed.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

#BREAKING: facing constitutional crisis, in an unprecedented move, a blog was named to the empty ninth seat on the Supreme Court.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

And then it began. Here’s a collection of some of the best responses from yesterday:

We don’t rule “against the Constitution.” We twist it however we want. MT @pswise1 @SCOTUSblog Is RACIST &Again Rules Against Constitution

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

So funny bc we’re just flipping coins. Math says we’ll eventually get one right MT @somhrd50 @SCOTUSblog always on the wrong side of history

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

No! Expose who killed Vince Foster, indict Clinton, THEN impeach him. MT @hendog127@SCOTUSblog -Your first OBLIGATION IS TO IMPEACH OBAMA

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

Here’s someone calling SCOTUSblog dumb (while at the same time confusing SCOTUSblog for the actual Supreme Court):

What makes you look dumbest, Bets’? MT @BetsyKerr Nothing makes @SCOTUSblog look dumber than a judge dissenting w/irrelevant opinion.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

I’ll let you unpack this one:

Keep it? Most men will prolly oblige. #nadaforzada MT @zadabee @SCOTUSblog Stop killing sperm! Man controls the sperm: KEEP IT~

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

Here’s a nice reference to SCOTUSblog’s Twitter bio, which pretty clearly states that it is not affiliated with the actual court. But hey, who takes the time to read Twitter bios before angry tweeting?

Twitter descriptions are good reads too MT @carryabigstaff @SCOTUSblog If you read the Constitution, you know there is no right to privacy.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

Not all of the tweets were angry–some were happy with the court’s decision to strike down provisions in Texas’s HB 2, a law that placed what the court deemed to be undue restrictions on abortion providers.

Honestly, we were 5-3 on selling you to @zombieblog. MT @slclaridge Thanks @SCOTUSblog for continuing to let ME have control over MY body.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016

To cap it off, SCOTUSblog ended up trolling unknowing Twitter users so well that Twitter actually suspended its account thinking that it was hacked. The blog posted an update explaining what happened and after a couple of hours, everything was back to normal: it returned to tweeting serious court news. Apparently the annual “running of the trolls” worked too well this time around.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Twitter Users, SCOTUSblog is not the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Several major Supreme Court rulings came out on Thursday, including what amounts to a rejection of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as well as an opinion upholding the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. This post will be updated as more rulings come out, check back on Monday for the next wave of decisions.

Here is Law Street’s editorial team with what you need to know:

Update–June 26 rulings:

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of political bribery.

Abortion Restrictions: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

The decision: In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive regulations on abortion clinics. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to provide the majority necessary to overturn Texas’s House Bill 2. The ruling concluded that the restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for similar abortion restrictions in other states.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for gun control.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for immigrants in the United States.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of affirmative action.

The Fourth Amendment: Utah v. Strieff

The decision: In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and it protections against illegal searches, allowing evidence that may have been obtained illegally to be used in court.

Click here to read a full analysis of the opinion and how it may lead to more illegal searches in the future.

—

Check back here for additional coverage of new Supreme Court rulings. The final round of decisions is expected to be released on Monday, June 27.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated the date when the next round of decisions are expected. It is Monday, June 27 not Monday, July 1.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything You Need to Know About the Recent Supreme Court Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

As police violence has garnered much of the public’s attention, some believe that increased scrutiny of law enforcement has led to a “war on police.” The best way to understand the extent of the violence police face and how it has changed over time is to look at the FBI’s statistics on officer assaults in the line of duty.

In the map below, darker red states have a higher rate of assaults per 100 employed officers. The second chart details the number of employed officers based on the population that they cover. In total, there were 48,315 assaults in the line of duty in 2014. For the United States as a whole, there were nine assaults per 100 law enforcement officers that year.

In the second map, darker blue states mean there is a higher number of officers per 100,000 people. The FBI’s data includes statistics from 11,150 law enforcement agencies that employ more than 536,000 officers. The agencies included in the report cover more than 75 percent of the U.S. population. All data is from the 2014 calendar year.

Read More: What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty

*Use landscape mode if viewing on mobile*

The Rockford, Illinois and Maui, Hawaii police departments are the only agencies in their states with available data. You can view both police departments’ statistics here.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police in America 2016: State-by-State Breakdown of Officer Assaults in the Line of Duty appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI recently released a snapshot of law enforcement officer deaths in 2015, indicating that such deaths decreased last year. But that is only a small subset of the available information on officer deaths. Now that policing has reached the center of the public’s attention, statistics about what happens to officers while they’re on duty are sure to be an important part of the debate.

Interactive Map: Officer Assaults and Employment by State

The FBI publishes an annual report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted in the Line of Duty (LEOKA), which can provide some interesting insights into the matter and inform debates about police deaths. The annual LEOKA publication is one of the most detailed data sets kept by the FBI. For obvious reasons, it’s important for the FBI and all law enforcement agencies to keep track of and understand the situations in which police officers are killed and assaulted.

Here’s what the FBI data tells us:

More Officers Die from Accidents than Felonies

Source: FBI LEOKA 2014     |     Includes Preliminary 2015 Data

The chart above details the number of officer deaths from both accidents and felonies between 2005 and 2015. The average number of felonious deaths during that 11 year period is about 50, while the average number of accidental deaths is just below 60. Last year saw particularly low numbers for both felonious and accidental deaths, with 41 and 45 respectively.

The data can also tell us a lot about the causes of these deaths. Nearly 60 percent of accidental deaths that occurred between 2005 and 2014 were the result of automobile accidents. If you broaden the category to include motorcycle and aircraft accidents they account for more than 70 percent in total.

The chart below details the trends over time:

Source: FBI, LEOKA and *Preliminary 2015 Data

There has been a slight downward trend in both felonious and accidental police officer deaths. The preliminary numbers for 2015 are also encouraging, as the number of accidental deaths tied its 10-year low with 45, and the number of felonious deaths matched the second lowest point in the same period at 41. Law enforcement deaths in the line of duty is certainly an important thing to track, but when it comes to assessing the threat that officers face every day, looking at assault statistics can be particularly informative.

 What We Know About the Offenders

Source: FBI, LEOKA – Table 47

The FBI keeps detailed information on both victims and offenders, allowing felonious offenders to be broken down by race, sex, and several other categories. Between 2005 and 2014, there was a total of 563 offenders involved in felonious officer deaths. When you break those numbers down by race, 309, or 55 percent of the known offenders are white and 224, or 40 percent are black. Asian/Pacific islanders, Native Americans, and offenders whose race was not reported account for less than 2 percent each.

Offenders are also overwhelmingly male–nearly 97 percent of known offenders are men. The vast majority–83 percent–have also had prior criminal arrests and just over one-quarter of all offenders were under some form of judicial supervision.

Assaults and Injuries have Been Decreasing

Source: FBI, LEOKA – Table 76

Assaults on police officers have generally trended downward over the past 10 years. After peaking at 61,257 in 2007, the total number of assaults has decreased to 48,315 in 2014, a decrease of more than 20 percent. The chart above also details the number of officers who sustained injuries from an assault. All injury numbers are estimates–based on percentages provided by the FBI–with the exception of 2014, which is the exact number recorded by the FBI.

The number of assaults that caused injuries also followed a downward trend, with approximately 16,866 in 2007 and 13,654 in 2014. Although the number of injuries has not dropped as quickly as the total number of assaults, this is certainly an encouraging sign for police officers.

Moving Forward

The 2015 assault and injury statistics, which will be released later this year, will be particularly interesting in light of recent discussion of the so-called “Ferguson effect,” in which some argue that the perceived threat to law enforcement officers has caused proactive policing to decline and crime rates to go up. These numbers will also help inform the debate on the alleged “war on police,” a related argument in which some claim that officers are being attacked more as protests and movements like Black Lives Matter have called more attention to issues surrounding police violence.

Based on the preliminary numbers for felonious deaths, that does not appear to be the case. But we do not yet know whether increased scrutiny is correlated with an increase in assaults. As the chart above indicates, the number of assaults has gone down steadily over the past several years, but in time, we’ll know if 2015 is an exception.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police in America 2016: What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street Media’s Police in America coverage takes a look at statistics on law enforcement officers in the U.S. As the conversations around police policies, use of force, and police deaths feature prominently in public discourse, Law Street strives to provide the most up-to-date facts, numbers, and coverage of Police in America.

Officer Deaths by the Numbers

What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty

State-by-State Breakdown of Officer Assaults in the Line of Duty

Latest News:

Preliminary Data Shows Drop in Police Officer Deaths

When Does Racial Bias Affect Police Officers’ Use of Force?

To read more about crime rates in U.S. cities, states, and metropolitan areas, check out Law Street’s Crime in America coverage.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police in America 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Mass shootings in the United States generate intense media, public, and political attention, often leading to strong policy responses as well. But according to a recent working paper, those responses aren’t exactly what you might expect. Professors at Harvard Business School researched the aftermath of mass shootings and found that while these events did often lead to a significant increase in gun legislation, those efforts actually tend to make guns more available to the public. Here’s what you need to know about the new research:

The Main Takeaways

While most attempts to study gun legislation focus on the efforts’ effects on the sale and use of guns, these researchers sought to understand what prompts changes in gun laws. Professors Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin highlight three primary findings from their research:

• Mass shootings are salient public events that lead to strong policy responses from state legislatures.
• Despite the relatively small number of people who die from mass shootings–by their measure, fewer than 100 people die each year due to public mass shootings while approximately 30,000 people die from gun violence each year–such events have a disproportionate effect on gun legislation.
• They find, surprisingly, that mass shootings lead to a loosening of state gun laws. This is largely because both parties respond to gun violence in different ways and legislatures controlled by Republicans are more likely to enact new gun laws after a mass shooting.

The researchers find that a single mass shooting corresponds with a 15 percent increase in gun legislation introduced the following year. They note in the paper, “A single mass shooting leads to an approximately 15 percent increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting.” That increase is particularly significant in the context of gun-related deaths. Under their measure of mass shootings, these incidents lead to about 0.3 percent of all gun deaths but prompt a significant amount of legislation.

While it may not be surprising that high-profile events lead to political responses, the extent of that response may be. According to the researchers:

Our estimates suggest that the per-death impact of mass shootings on bills introduced is about 66 times as large as the impact of gun homicides in non-mass shooting incidents.

Policy Responses

Another important takeaway is that these events tend to spark strong responses from policymakers, but the content of those responses–whether they are proposals to strengthen or loosen gun control laws–largely depends on the party in control of the state legislature. They find that in Republican-controlled legislatures, mass shootings lead to a 75 percent increase in laws that loosen gun restrictions. On the other hand, they found no statistically significant effect on enacted laws when Democrats control the legislature.

In their research, the authors looked at several reports and databases of mass shootings in combination with the LexisNexis bill tracking service in order to determine the legislative response to mass shootings. After identifying bills proposed in response to mass shootings, they coded each bill in terms of whether they tightened or loosened gun laws. To isolate incidents that are generally considered mass shootings, they only looked at shootings that are public events, with three or more deaths, and where the victims are not related to the shooter. They also controlled for a wide range of variables to try and find a causal connection between these shootings and enacted laws.

Looking at state government responses to these events provides some important, and often overlooked, insight into how mass shootings shape gun policy. We might assume that when tragic events like these occur and generate a large amount of attention, policymakers would respond with laws that restrict gun sales. While that does happen, when you look at bills that make it all the way into law, they tend to have the opposite effect.

Party Control Matters

Because Republicans generally do not believe that stronger gun control will reduce mass shootings, they instead respond to these events with laws that correspond to their underlying ideological views. When looking at laws that were actually enacted, the evidence suggests that Republicans are more likely to put their policy preferences into effect. While the researchers do not attempt to explain why in their paper, they find that Democrat-controlled legislatures do not lead to a significant increase in enacted laws that restrict gun sales.

Gun control is one of the most polarizing issues in American politics, with Republicans and Democrats strongly split on the appropriate level of restrictions for gun buyers. This split explains, in part, why politics largely determines the response to these events. Put simply, these events tend to drive policymakers to push for laws that their existing political beliefs support; and Republican-controlled legislatures are considerably more likely to put those laws into effect.

One of the primary problems here–and an important driver of political polarization between the two parties–is a lack of consensus on effective policies to prevent gun violence. Democrats believe that additional restrictions and safeguards to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands are necessary. Meanwhile, Republicans are skeptical of the effectiveness of these efforts and argue that people should be entitled to protect themselves from danger. As a result, policymakers respond to mass shootings based on what they already hold to be true and not necessarily with evidenced-based proposals to reduce gun violence.

What’s Next?

This research also highlights some important questions for policymaking going forward. In the paper, the authors write:

We find that even random and infrequent events that account for a relatively small portion of total societal harm in a domain might nonetheless be crucial levers for policy consideration and change.

Although they find that the responses to mass shootings are largely based on existing ideology, it’s worth questioning whether events–which account for about 0.3 percent of all gun deaths–should have such an outsized influence.

The important takeaway from all of this isn’t necessarily that public mass shootings lead to looser gun laws, but why exactly that happens. In the United States, American citizens and their elected officials are far from consensus on what the best response to gun violence should be. While research suggests we should treat gun violence as a public health issue–much like tobacco or automobile accidents–agreement on specific policies can be difficult to come by and the solutions are often more complicated than simply making it harder to buy guns.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Mass Shootings Lead to Looser Gun Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

Preliminary statistics released by the FBI on Monday show that 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 2015, a 20 percent decrease from the previous year. Although the statistics are preliminary and are subject to revision, these numbers indicate that police officer deaths are near historic lows. This release comes during national police week, which began with a candlelit vigil on May 13.

The preliminary statistics will likely add to the debate about a so-called “war on cops” that some argue is the result of recent police protests. While law enforcement work often involves danger, there is no evidence to suggest that police officer deaths are on the rise. The number of police officer deaths decreased significantly last year and is at the second-lowest level in the past decade.

Take a look at the graphics below to understand these statistics and how they fit into historical trends.

Officer Deaths Over Time

Source: FBI, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2014 and *Preliminary 2015 Release

Both felonious and accidental deaths were relatively low in 2015 compared to previous years. Felonious deaths experienced a 20 percent decrease from the previous year. With 41 felonious deaths, last year matched 2008 with the second lowest number in over a decade. The lowest number in recent history came in 2013 with 27 deaths from felonious incidents in the line of duty.

Accidental deaths did not change between 2014 and 2015, but at 45, that number is at its lowest level for over a decade. A death is considered accidental by the FBI when it was a result of something that was not willful or intentional.

Regional Breakdown

Source: FBI

The chart above details the distribution of felonious police officer deaths from the FBI’s preliminary data. The South saw the most with 46 percent of the total deaths, followed by the West with 22 percent, the Midwest with 12 percent, and Northeast and Puerto Rico with just under 10 percent each.

While the statistics released on Monday do not provide details about the number of law enforcement officers and the population covered by each region, it is important to note that historical data indicates that the South has both more people and officers compared to other regions. Based on data from the 2014 report, the last year with complete data available, the South had about 40 percent of all employed police officers and the South has historically had higher numbers of police officer deaths than other regions.

Weapons Involved

Source: FBI

The chart above details the weapons involved in the 41 felonious officer deaths based on the preliminary data for 2015. All but three deaths were due to the use of firearms, with handguns accounting for nearly three-quarters of firearm deaths. The FBI also notes that 30 of the 41 officers were wearing body armor when they were killed.

The vast majority of the 45 accidental deaths involved automobiles; 29 were due to automotive accidents, seven were struck by vehicles, and four were fatally injured in motorcycle accidents.

A Look at 2016

While the FBI does not have any information available for 2016, and likely won’t until it releases preliminary data this time next year, there are independent counts of law enforcement fatalities with more updated information. The Officer Down Memorial Page, which has tracked this data for a long period of time, has found 17 fatal shootings and one intentional death using a vehicle as a weapon so far this year. As the Guardian points out, if this rate continues for the rest of the year there would be 48 officer deaths–an increase from 2015 and the same number as 2014, based on the website’s count.

The final data, which will have expanded details and information on assaults that resulted in injury in 2015, will be released by the FBI in the fall with its annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed in Assaulted report.

For more Law Street Media Crime Coverage, Check Out Crime in America 2016

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police in America 2016: Preliminary Data Shows Drop in Police Deaths appeared first on Law Street.

It all ended (or began) in Indiana. Voting ended at 6 PM and before the night was over, Ted Cruz was out of the race and Donald Trump had all but secured the Republican nomination.

Here’s a tweet from Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

After Tuesday, we now know who the eventual nominees will almost certainly be: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Sorry Bernie fans, but it’s just not in the cards for him. He needs to win more than 65 percent of the remaining vote and he’s actually in worse shape today than he was before the Hoosiers took to the polls, despite winning their state).

Ted Cruz ran an impressive campaign, he was well organized, and had a better understanding of the electorate relative to most of his competitors. But Cruz was already looking like a longshot before he suspended his campaign on Tuesday night. Despite announcing Carly Fiorina as his choice for Vice President as last ditch effort, Cruz has been mathematically eliminated since the New York primary. Meaning that his only chances of securing the nomination rested on the possibility of a contested convention in which the frontrunner, Trump, did not win a majority of the Republican delegates before the party’s convention. Given that, especially in the last couple weeks, Trump was already on a pretty clear path to the necessary 1,237 delegates, the Cruz campaign had little hope. And although it may not have made a difference, the Republican Party remained notably reluctant to get behind Cruz. Just look at what former Speaker of the House John Boehner just said about him.

And now, for all intents and purposes, the general election campaign begins. Although Sanders and Clinton will continue to challenge each other, barring an extraordinary and unprecedented change of heart among the superdelegates, Clinton has it wrapped up. And now that Cruz is out, Trump has a clear path to the nomination (although Kasich is still running?).

So the remaining question is whether or not the parties will unite to support their presumptive nominees. We now have to wait and see how Republicans react to Donald Trump securing their nomination. To be fair, this is still a question for the Democrats too–Sanders has received more support than anyone thought possible and some question whether those supporters will easily shift to support Clinton–but for Republicans, it’s a much bigger issue. Given that the party split apart in the primary season as some of its leaders embarked on a crusade to stop Trump, that question is particularly important.

As the general election starts to begin, it’s anyone’s guess as to what happens next. The conventional wisdom suggests that Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite. She’s winning in head-to-head polls, which are now just starting to become somewhat useful. Republicans are deeply fractured among those who oppose and support Trump. And the only candidate with a lower net favorability rating (the percent people who view a candidate positively minus those who view him or her negatively) than Hillary Clinton is, in fact, Donald Trump. The biggest question is who turns out to vote on election day. Are Democrats able to mobilize their supporters for a somewhat lackluster candidate, and are Republicans willing to rally around Trump?

While Clinton looks like she has a formidable lead at this point, the conventional wisdom has been wrong several times so far. After all, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for president.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruz is Out and Trump is in, What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank defaulted on $422 million in debt on Monday, a small but important portion of the island’s $72 billion debt. This isn’t the first time Puerto Rico has failed to pay its debt; the country has been in dire financial trouble for a long time and its governor announced last June that the island’s debts were not payable. But Monday’s default marks the first time that Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank will not be able to make a payment, a signal that the crisis in Puerto Rico is worsening by the day.

As the island continues to default, Peurto Rico faces increasing economic turmoil and may eventually fail to pay for the debt on its general obligation bonds, which are actually guaranteed by its constitution. The government in Puerto Rico has already taken harsh measures to cut spending and make some payments on outstanding debt. But as it reduces public services it threatens to weaken its economy even further.

Read on to learn how we got here and what’s in store for Puerto Rico’s future.

What Happened on Monday?

The entirety of Puerto Rico’s $72 billion debt is not due all at once, and on Monday, it only failed to pay most of the $422 million that it owed. Puerto Rico is a unique case in that there is not a single entity responsible for issuing all of its bonds, but the Government Development Bank is the commonwealth’s largest bond issuer–meaning its default is particularly significant.

The GDB did manage to make an agreement with credit unions to push back $33 million of its debt for another year, though much of the outstanding debt remains. In early April, Peurto Rican lawmakers passed a bill issuing a moratorium on debt payments, effectively allowing the government to stop paying its debts until 2017, though bondholders quickly took the issue to the courts. The island will continue to negotiate with its bondholders to the extent that it can, but because Puerto Rico cannot declare bankruptcy, there is no established process for doing so.

While the commonwealth has already defaulted on some of its debt, it has, so far,  managed to stay current on its general obligation debt–which it is constitutionally required to pay (there are several different types of bonds issued by Puerto Rico, but the general obligation bonds are considered to be particularly important). As the government continues to default, staying current on its general obligation payments will become increasingly less likely. Notably, the government will need to pay more than $800 billion in general obligation debt on June 1, which many consider the deadline to work out a resolution before the crisis peaks.

How did we get here?

Economic woes in Puerto Rico largely began after a 1996 law removed tax incentives for companies located in Puerto Rico. That law began a 10-year phase out of section 936 of the tax code, which had previously given significant tax benefits to companies with subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Since then, the island has been in the throws of economic contraction and large numbers of Puerto Ricans have fled to the U.S. mainland.

The island has been in a recession for nearly 10 years, which has increased the local government’s cost of borrowing money. As a result, Puerto Rico has had to raise taxes and cut back on services to pay its bondholders. In 2014, Puerto Rico managed to strike a deal with several hedge funds to provide much-needed funding to keep the commonwealth solvent. But it was forced to take on short-term debt at a high interest rate, making its current situation even worse.

Underneath its current fiscal concerns, Puerto Rico has been dealing with ongoing economic contraction. A report commissioned by the government outlines many of the current challenges–from laws like the Jones Act, which inflates the cost of goods on the island by requiring all shipments to be made with U.S. boats; the federal minimum wage, which particularly high relative to the average income on the island and can prevent companies from hiring; and mismatching welfare needs relative to the mainland United States–that limit the island’s economic prospects. These problems have also caused many to leave the island altogether.

This chart from the Pew Research Center illustrates how the rate of population decline in Puerto Rico has been increasing in recent years:

Hope that Puerto Rico will one day be able to pay off its more than $70 billion debt is leaving the island as quickly as its residents. As the commonwealth’s population dwindles so too does its tax base, which is a crucial factor in the local government’s ability to increase its revenue and pay of future debt.

What about Wall Street?

Some argue that hedge funds exploited the situation in Puerto Rico by purchasing large amounts of government debt at very low prices. Economic troubles pushed interest rates on Puerto Rican bonds to over eight percent, which combined with significant tax advantages, made the island’s debt particularly appealing. Puerto Rico is able to issue triple tax-exempt bonds because Congress made the government and its public corporations’ debt exempt from federal, state, and local taxes.

That, combined with the constitutional guarantee–the general obligation bonds take precedence over all other public expenses–made Puerto Rican debt look particularly attractive to large investors. The New York Times summed this point up in an in-depth look at the situation last December:

There were plenty of reasons for the hedge funds to like the deal: They would be earning, in effect, a 20 percent return. And under the island’s Constitution, Puerto Rico was required to pay back its debt before almost any other bills, whether for retirees’ health care or teachers’ salaries.

Critics note that hedge funds have been taking advantage of attractive bonds issued by Puerto Rico and are now turning to the courts to ensure that they are paid the full price for bonds that they bought at a discount.

Is there a solution?

In light of Puerto Rico’s dire situation, the commonwealth’s fate lies almost exclusively in the hands of Congress. In light of its ongoing economic contraction and population decline, Puerto Rico will almost certainly be unable to stay current on its debt. Congress is now tasked with deciding if and how it will help the Puerto Rican government deal with the crisis.

The government in Puerto Rico is currently asking Congress to allow it to restructure its debts using the formal Chapter 9 bankruptcy process or something similar. Currently, Puerto Rico is unable to go bankrupt and has very little ability to negotiate with its creditors. Going bankrupt would allow the commonwealth to negotiate a plan to pay all or part of its debt over on a new time frame with different interest rates. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew argues that if Congress doesn’t act now and allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debts a bailout may actually be needed in the future.

Republicans in Congress have proposed a slightly more hands-on approach–creating a panel to manage and restructure the island’s debt obligations. The fiscal control board would allow the island to restructure its debts but would have a guiding authority to handle the politically difficult decisions involved with cutting back services and negotiating with bondholders. But that plan has faced opposition on both sides of the aisle.

Many conservatives have been wary of granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debts, arguing that doing so could create a dangerous precedent and may amount to a bailout. It would not, in fact, be a bailout–debt restructuring would not involve any government funding–restructuring would merely allow the Puerto Rican government to renegotiate with bondholders without any taxpayer funds. Democrats argue that creating a control board would put too much control in the hands of an undemocratic entity. Puerto Ricans are also particularly wary of giving up control over their finances to a board of people installed by Congress.

While disagreements over how to deal with Puerto Rico’s imminent default persist, it’s important to note that such measures would only go so far in solving the island’s fiscal crisis. Even if it manages to renegotiate its debts, the commonwealth will need to rebuild its economy in the face of consistent population loss. As further cuts to public services are necessary to meet its debt obligations, the island will have an increasingly difficult time bringing money in to make future payments.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Puerto Rico is Defaulting: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

“Government should have lawful access to any encrypted message or device.” That was the resolution at the center of a debate between CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor and infamous (or famous, depending on your opinions) leaker of classified information.

The Sides

Zakaria, the host of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” and Washington Post columnist, supported the resolution, arguing that no one should be able to have a “zone of immunity,” and that with due process, all information should be accessible to law enforcement. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor responsible for an unprecedented leak of classified information about the agency’s surveillance programs, took the opposing position, arguing that computer security is the preeminent challenge of our time and that making it possible for the government to access devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

The People and the Place

The debate, which took place in the New York Times Building just steps away from Times Square, was co-hosted by the Century Foundation and NYU’s Wagner School for public service. Zakaria stood before the audience in New York while Snowden was teleconferenced in from Russia.

Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden debate encryption. [Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media]

With the help of moderator Barton Gellman–a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who broke the story after Snowden’s leak and current Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation–the debaters managed to debate the merits of encryption. Although discussion of encryption often becomes abstract, with talk of backdoors and impenetrable walls, Snowden and Zakaria got to the crux of the issue: when possible, should companies be forced to comply with court orders to release information when law enforcement cannot access it?

The Fuss Over Encryption

Encryption tends to quickly polarize people. On one hand there are people like FBI Director James Comey who has said that one day, law enforcement officers will need to get into an encrypted device to save a kidnapped child, and without the ability to do so, someone might die. On the other are privacy advocates, who say that weakening security by making every device accessible to the government, or creating a so-called backdoor, will make devices insecure for everyone, criminals and upstanding citizens alike. But the reality is often more complicated.

Drawing from his unique position as a former NSA contractor and current privacy advocate, Snowden noted that nothing is completely protected. If someone can access their device, then it is possible for others to access it as well. He used examples from his time at the NSA, saying that he was able to get around encryption. He also cited the FBI’s success in arresting Ross Ulbricht, the man behind the infamous Silk Road website–an online black market that often facilitated illegal activity. The FBI managed to arrest Ulbricht and access his encrypted information because agents physically took his computer while he was logged into Silk Road at a public library.

But Zakaria shot back arguing that getting around encryption like that is very difficult and often extremely expensive. He noted the recent battle between the FBI and Apple, in which the FBI ended up paying more than a million dollars to break into a phone used by one of the San Bernadino shooters. Zakaria asked why wealthy law enforcement agencies should be able to break into the phones of murderers while similar crimes go unsolved in Harlem and the Bronx.

Eventually, Gellman, the moderator, raised a question that got to the heart of the issue. He noted that the messaging service WhatsApp has, based on available evidence, managed to create comprehensive end-to-end encryption for its users–meaning that even the company cannot read its users’ messages. Gellman asked Zakaria if such services should exist, noting that a bill in the Senate would require companies to be able to decrypt their customers’ data with a court order, making impenetrable encryption against the law.

Zakaria conceded that if a company was able to create a system that the company itself could not decrypt, then they would not be held liable. “If WhatsApp says we literally do not know how to write this code—WhatsApp could demonstrate to a court that they don’t have to do it,” Zakaria said. But he maintained that if uncovering the data is possible, the government should be allowed to do so with a court order.

At that point, the disagreement became clear–Zakaria, and the pro law enforcement camp in general, believe that when it is possible (and it often is) the government should be able to gain access to devices if they obtain a court order. But Snowden, technologists, and privacy advocates, counter that making companies exploit their own systems to gain access to devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

A Welcome Focus on Realism

While strong disagreement between the two sides remained at the end of the event, they managed to discuss the issue based on its merits without exclusively dealing in abstract hypothetical situations. The debate boiled down to the tension between cyber security and law enforcement’s ability to get information, echoing the larger battle between preserving privacy and providing safety. While the debate remains far from settled, Snowden and Zakaria’s discussion of encryption should help shape the conversation going forward.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden Debate the Limits of Encryption appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

While New York voters were casting their ballots in the state’s primary on Tuesday, many Bernie Sanders supporters were hoping for a last-minute court intervention to open up the primary after a series of registration issues. While the challenge focused largely on issues with registration records, many voters were upset by the rules surrounding the state’s closed primary. When many independent voters realized that in order to vote in the Democratic primary they had to have already re-registered with the Democratic Party back in October, many were understandably upset.

Voters in New York and across the country have started to feel increasingly disenfranchised as the campaign reveals some of the weirder aspects of the American primary system. But the more you look at the way we nominate candidates in the United States, it becomes clear that the bizarre and varying campaign rules make very little sense.

Between delegate allocation that ranges from proportional to winner-take-all, superdelegates, open and closed primaries, caucuses, the outsized influence of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and the possibility of brokered conventions, the primary process is unnecessarily complex and in some ways, undemocratic.

While most people view the primaries and caucuses as a series of state-wide elections where voters go to the polls and pick their respective party’s nominee, the reality is much, much more complicated. Primaries are a race for delegates, which are allocated by state but do not always live up to the democratic vision of elections that most have. Complexity in the primary system makes the process unnecessarily confusing, and tends to give a greater voice to the parties than to the actual voters.

Neil Irwin at the New York Times made a laudable attempt to find some good out of the current system, arguing that the complexity requires candidates to hire effectively and manage a large, sprawling campaign. Irwin makes a good point in that the complexity of the campaigns can help us weed out candidates, but it doesn’t matter in so far as elections make voters feel like the parties are trying to marginalize them.

Now it’s fair to say that this election is pretty different than past nomination processes. Everything is particularly competitive, and as a result, each delegate means a lot. This has caused many to pay closer attention to exactly how the process works, and for most, they don’t like what they see.

There are a lot of factors that have caused many to feel disconnected from the two political parties, but this election has made disaffection a political message. The so-called outsider or anti-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders have made a point of directing ill will toward the parties and the election results. While criticizing the establishment could be chalked up as a political maneuver, when it comes to the nominating process both candidates have a point. Superdelegates and closed primaries favor the Democratic party because they give party insiders direct influence and can prevent independents from participating. And when half the Republican party is talking about a contested convention that could give the nomination to someone who didn’t win the popular vote, people are justifiably upset.

While some may argue that these quirks have a significant impact by shifting media coverage and the public’s perception of the campaign, they may not change the ultimate outcome. But that doesn’t really matter when the current system still makes many Americans feel excluded. The rules surrounding the nomination process simply become another way for people to be mad at the establishment.

A perfect example of this just occurred in New York. Would Bernie Sanders have won if the state held an open primary? Probably not. But New York’s particularly restrictive re-registering rules made it so independent voters, who tend to lean toward Sanders, still weren’t able to vote. So now the issue distracts from the race and causes many to get angry at the establishment. It also gives the Sanders campaign an opportunity to trash the system and add fuel to the fire.

But underlying all of this is the fact that the complexity distracts people from the issues and erodes trust in our democratic institutions. A casual observer of the primaries is inundated with strategy and horse-race media coverage based on obscure rules that change each election cycle and vary by state and party. Because of this process, we have candidates saying that there is a “rigged system” and we have young voters turning against their party because of a perceived bias in favor of the frontrunner.

Now I’m not saying that fixing the absurdity that is our nominating process will solve these problems. People will still feel marginalized and disconnected from mainstream politics. But when it comes to the most basic form of civic participation, Americans need to feel like their vote counts and that election outcomes are legitimate.

We have a long way to go before the American people trust their institutions and feel included in the democratic process. But when it comes to elections, there’s no reason why we can’t fix some of the more ridiculous idiosyncrasies. Any voter should be able to look at a state’s election results and assess the current state of the race. And there should be very few opportunities for politicians and their supporters to argue that the parties are trying to control the race.

Simple reforms like doing away with superdelegates, allocating all delegates based on the popular vote, making every election an open primary where voters are free to register and vote for the candidate of their choice, and unifying the rest of the rules to prevent large discrepancies between states would go a long way in making this process more accessible to the average news consumer. More dramatic reforms like fixing the election schedule so it doesn’t favor states that aren’t representative of the rest of the country would also help. While this may be treating the symptom and not the problem, reforming the nomination process would certainly prevent a lot of distraction on the campaign trail and make voters feel more included in the nomination process.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Face it, the U.S. Primary System is Ridiculous appeared first on Law Street.

As the Supreme Court declined to hear the Authors Guild challenge of Googles Book’s digitizing program on Monday, a legal battle that lasted for over a decade comes to an end. The court’s denial to hear the case will leave in place an appeals court decision that upheld Google’s book scanning program as a fair use of copyrighted works. In its decision not to take up the case, the Supreme Court also avoided making a sweeping ruling on copyright law in the digital age.

“Today authors suffered a colossal loss,”Authors Guild President Roxana Robinson said in a press release after the Supreme Court’s decision. “We believed then and we believe now that authors should be compensated when their work is copied for commercial purposes,” Robinson said of the longstanding legal dispute. But advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have strongly supported Google’s project. The EFF concluded, “All in all, it’s a good day for fair use” after the circuit court ruled in favor of Google–the ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision now leaves in place.

Back in 2004, Google undertook an effort to digitize millions of books in order to create a database to help bolster the company’s dominance in the internet search market. Google also argued that it was providing a public service because it would help people discover existing pieces of writing. The project began as a collaboration with libraries to create searchable versions of works in the public domain, but it also expanded to include works currently under copyright.

At the heart of the issue is the question of whether or not Google’s project falls under the category of fair use, a legal doctrine that allows for copyrighted works to be used when serving certain public interests. The suit began back in 2005 when the Author’s Guild took issue with Google’s digitization project, arguing that the company would illegally take away authors’ profits. The case became a class action effort in 2012 after authors and copyright holders came together to challenge Google.

The Authors Guild’s primary issue with Google’s program is that the company did not seek out permission from the copyright holder before digitizing their work and making the contents searchable online. Although Google did not make the full text of copyrighted works available online, it did allow users to search for text within books as well as see a limited sample of the surrounding text. The Authors Guild also argues that allowing Google to digitize authors’ books without permission for its own profit is a clear violation of copyright law.

Google’s profit from the project was a major issue earlier on because the company initially displayed advertising in search results and on individual book’s pages. Although the two parties reached a sort of compromise to share ad revenue, Google eventually ended the program, noting that it wasn’t a major source of revenue. The two sides nearly settled the entire case back in 2011, but a New York district court judge rejected it, arguing that the arrangement would have given Google a de facto monopoly.

After rejecting the settlement deal, the New York district court ruled in favor of Google, saying that the way Google digitized and uses the books in its search engine constitutes a transformation in the context of fair use. In his opinion, which issued summary judgment to Google dismissing the Authors Guild complaint, Judge Denny Chin ruled in favor of Google, saying that its project

Advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders.

After the district court ruling, the Authors Guild appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which also ruled in Google’s favor. Ultimately, the Guild appealed to the Supreme Court, but after its decision not to take up the case on Monday, Google Books will now remain intact.

The court’s decision also reflects a reluctance to issue a major ruling on fair use in the age of the internet. The authors involved in the lawsuit claim, “the internet was not anticipated” when modern copyright law was written back in the 1970s and that the court needed to settle the issue. In light of the recent decision, we’ll likely have to wait for another high-profile case to make its way to the Supreme Court before to get a better understanding of the relationship between copyright law and the internet.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Authors Guild Challenge Against Google Books appeared first on Law Street.

A 10-month-long contract dispute has finally come to a head as 36,000 Verizon employees went on strike Wednesday. The strike began after Verizon and the two labor unions that represent Verizon’s wireline service workers could not reach an agreement before the two unions’ proposed deadline of 6 am, Wednesday. On Thursday, a large group of low-wage employees in other industries walked out of work in an effort to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Both the strike and the fight for $15 protest come after New York and California passed laws to increase their minimum wage laws. Some point to this as a pattern, in which low-wage workers are finally trying to make up for years of stagnant pay and economic hardship. For others, this is merely another blip in the perennial struggle between labor and business. Either way, this is one of the largest strikes in recent history and has quickly become a political issue.

What do both sides want?

The primary point of disagreement between Verizon and its workers is the company’s desire to have more flexibility with its workforce and the workers’ hope for sustained job security. Verizon argues that the company needs to adjust to meet the changing economy’s demands. It claims that it has offered reasonable solutions to prevent benefit costs from increasing dramatically and has offered significant pay increases. Meanwhile, workers argue that it is unfair for their company to force them to relocate and travel long distances for work, noting that if they refuse to do so they will likely lose their jobs.

An interesting aspect of the strike is that it seems to have less to do with wages specifically. Verizon has offered a 6.5 percent pay increase and most of the two unions’ complaints have not focused on wages. Verizon frames the negotiations as an effort to allow the company to get with the times, while workers argue that the contract should focus on protecting decent paying middle-class jobs.

Some Context

Underlying the negotiations is the changing importance of the wireline side of Verizon’s business. As Verizon shifts its focus to its rapidly expanding wireless service, its wireline service–which includes television, phone, and internet–has actually decreased. The wireless side of the company, which is largely ununionized, has seen its profits soar while the more costly wireline service has contracted slightly as landline phone and television service becomes less popular. In light of this change, the company wants to cut costs on the less profitable component of its business by stretching its workers more.

While the workers are right when they say Verizon’s profits have soared in recent years, the bulk of that increase came from the wireless business. Over the last several years, Verizon has made a clear effort to transition much of its business to wireless. In 2013, Verizon Communications bought Vodaphone out of its 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless, giving the company full control over the wireless side of the business. In February 2015, Verizon sold a large chunk of its landline service to Frontier Communications. The deal, which included most of the company’s wireline infrastructure in the western part of the United States, allowed Verizon to buy additional wireless spectrum, further shifting its business in that direction. Aside from its recent announcement to bring FIOS infrastructure to Boston, Massachusetts, Verizon has been relatively uninterested in expanding its wireline service.

So Who’s Right?

Naturally, this question is the most difficult to answer. But when you take a closer look at the dynamics at play it tells us a lot about current labor dynamics in the United States. Can Verizon’s wireline business continue to be a source of good, middle-class jobs as it has been for decades, given that the company wants to shift toward wireless? More to the point, what happens to workers when technological and economic shifts make certain businesses less profitable? Unfortunately, these are questions that we probably won’t have a consensus on anytime soon, if ever.

According to a press release from Verizon, the workers on strike make an average of $130,000 per year, including salary and benefits, which indicates that wages aren’t the entire problem. It also doesn’t seem like the workers went on strike because their wages aren’t high enough. Instead, they fear that Verizon is trying to make it easier to ship jobs overseas and continue its shift away from wireline services. Although there is a significant market for Verizon FIOS, its fiber-optic internet service, its landline telephone, and video services are not as profitable as they have been in recent decades.

The exact details behind the negotiations are hard to pin down, but the dispute may end up taking some time to resolve. In the meantime, Verizon has been training non-union workers to fill in for the strikers. But even if the dispute is settled soon, it seems likely that the underlying debate will continue for quite some time. As Bernie Sanders gains national attention on a campaign to fight for workers and the push to increase the minimum wage maintains the spotlight, developed economies will have to answer some tough questions about the future of middle-class jobs in a time of rapid technological change.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on with the Verizon Strike? appeared first on Law Street.

The upcoming race for New York’s 13th Congressional District marks the first time that there’s an open seat to represent Harlem since WWII. Charlie Rangel has held the spot for years, and there’s a lot of history there–before Rangel was Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the first black man elected to Congress in New York and the fourth black Congressman in the United States. Powell was first elected back in 1947 and his son, Adam Clayton Powell IV, is one of the seven candidates vying for the open seat. But he’s not the only one vying for the seat in Harlem. Put simply: this is a race to watch.

The Democratic primary will be held on June 28; the winner will almost certainly go on to win the general election. The New York 13th district is one of the most solidly Democratic districts in the nation, with over 90 percent of the vote going to President Obama in each of the past two elections.

The Silicon Harlem Debate

In a district that has seen just two representatives in almost 70 years, the Silicon Harlem debate was held last week on April 7 as the district shifts to meet the fast-changing demands for the 21st century. The debate was hosted by Silicon Harlem, a nonprofit organization seeking to reinvigorate Harlem by expanding technological innovation in the neighborhood. The organization started back in 2013 and has been working with local government officials and tech startups to bring new opportunities to the Harlem community. Silicon Harlem’s founder, Clayton Banks, kicked off the event by introducing Representative Rangel, the candidates, and the moderators, who were led by MSNBC’s Richard Lui.

When most people think about innovation they typically think of tech giants in California, but Harlem’s debate shows that innovation can be a plan for economic growth at a very local level. Harlem and its surrounding areas have been working for years to create a tech hub in Upper Manhattan. Under Mayor Bloomberg, the city embarked on a plan to provide free and fast internet to a 95-block area including Harlem, the largest plan in the country. While the candidates and the crowd expressed their dissatisfaction with the plan’s progress, the area has had several success stories when it comes to incubating new tech companies.

Silicon Harlem’s debate marks a further shift in that direction. The first ever technology-focused debate highlights the area’s larger plans for development in the area. It shows that the New York 13th District’s next representative will need to make technology a significant part of their campaign and that once elected, he or she will need to pursue policies and programs to foster growth both nationally and in the district. In a time when most politics feels so national, the Silicon Harlem debate refocused the conversation on the district itself.

At the debate, the candidates touched on topics ranging from the need for a stronger focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education to the government’s role in regulating Uber. The central question was which policies will help spur growth in the district and what role should the government play in promoting local growth. The candidates all agreed that the government should be active, if not aggressive, when it comes to encouraging growth on the local level. But arguably its most important role is to expand access to new technology and high-speed internet. Closing the digital divide is of paramount importance when it comes to ensuring that everyone is able to benefit from new technology.

The Candidates

With seven candidates participating, the debate featured a range of experience and personality. Suzane Cook served as the Obama Administration’s Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. Keith Wright and Guillermo Linares currently serve in the New York State Assembly and Adam Clayton Powell IV was an assemblyman from 2001 to 2010. Senator Adriano Espaillat currently serves much of the northern part of the 13th district in the state senate. Clyde Williams served as a Domestic Political Advisor for President Clinton and as the National Political Director for the Democratic National Committee. Mike Gallagher is a stay-at-home father of four who grew up in the community. He’s running because he feels that the district’s current representatives have failed their constituents.

The Future

Although much of the debate focused on positive policy proposals, there was an underlying fear that Harlem, Washington Heights, the northwest section of the Bronx, and the rest of the New York 13th district would not reap the benefits of the technological revolution. That, coupled with the feeling that both Congress and the local government have not done enough to ensure its development, created a sense of urgency for those on stage.

State Senator Espaillat echoed this sentiment when he spoke of a two-tiered New York, saying, “and this debate is really about that as well: whether we can bring our communities to benefit from the innovation economy.” Cook noted the lack of minority and female participation in the technology industry, something that she argued would need to change for everyone to benefit in the future.

I spoke with Williams, a candidate and a former Clinton adviser, after the debate. He reiterated his plan to expand STEM education through after-school programs and initiatives to get children to start school at a younger age. He said that in order to ensure that Harlem and the New York 13th is competitive in the digital age, education needs to take a more holistic approach, starting earlier and engaging students during and after school hours. In the debate, Williams said, “but because we’re so far behind the eightball, as far as black and brown communities, we need to start educating our kids much earlier and we can expose them to technology at a much younger age.” It will be up to the candidate who wins to make that vision a reality.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Historic Congressional Race in Harlem: Technology is Key appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s annual Crime in America Rankings take an in-depth look at crime rates and important crime statistics for major cities across the country. The following infographic gives a visual summary of the report’s highlights and major findings:

Image copyright Law Street Media

Using statistics from the FBI, Law Street ranked cities, states, and metro areas according to their violent crime rates. Topping the list of most dangerous cities with populations over 200,000 is Detroit, Michigan with 1,989 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. The Memphis-TN metro area is the most dangerous metro and Alaska is the most dangerous state based on their violent crime rates per 100,000 people. The city with the lowest crime rate based on Law Street’s criteria is Irvine, California, which continues its streak at the top of the list of safest cities. Maine has the lowest crime rate out of all 50 states.

Read More: Crime in America 2016

One of the more interesting findings of Law Street’s reporting is the wide range in the number of police officers relative to the number of city residents, which Law Street termed the officer to population ratio. Among cities with populations greater than 200,000, Washington, D.C. has the most sworn officers relative to its population size. On the other end of the spectrum is Santa Ana, California, which has just one police officer for every 1,274 residents. When taking a closer look at the rankings, many of the cities with fewer police officers relative to their size are also some of the safest cities in the country while some of the most dangerous cities have notably high ratios.

There are some important exceptions to those trends. For example, Stockton, California has one police officer for every 807 citizens, which is notably higher than other cities on the Most Dangerous Cities list. Stockton ranks in the top 20 in terms of its officer to population ratio but makes the top 10 list of dangerous cities. A likely explanation for this case is the fact that Stockton recently went through bankruptcy, which caused cutbacks in many government offices. This case may be an example of an understaffed and underresourced police department that, among other things, contributes to an above average crime rate.

Law Street’s analysis of the FBI’s half year data for 2015 shows how crime rates changed from January to June compared the year prior. The graph at the bottom of the infographic depicts the changes among the most dangerous cities over 200,000. While Detroit, Michigan experienced a notable decrease in its violent crime rate, St. Louis saw its rate increase by nearly 23 percent in the first half of 2015.

For an even more in-depth look at Law Street’s crime coverage check out Crime in America 2016.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infographic: Visualizing Crime in America 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled this week that states can continue drawing election districts based on the idea of one person, one vote. The lawsuit, brought by a conservative activist group in Texas, sought to challenge the practice of drawing districts using total population numbers that include people who are ineligible to vote, notably illegal immigrants, but would also include children under the age of 18. While the court unanimously upheld the existing practice, it did not directly take up the question of whether states can change their redistricting processes to only include eligible voters.

Had the court ruled against the current practice, a massive shift in the way states draw their election districts would have ensued. The challenge would have had the most significant effect on areas with high immigrant populations like Texas, where the lawsuit originated. The appellants’ intended change would have shifted a lot of political influence from populated urban areas–which tend to have more ineligible voters like immigrants without citizenship, illegal immigrants, and children–to rural areas. That shift would also help Republicans at the expense of Democrats, whose voters tend to cluster in cities.

The challenge was brought by the Project for Fair Representation, an activist group that is also responsible for a pending challenge to the University of Texas at Austin’s use of affirmative action and recently mounted a successful legal battle against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The group’s argument focuses largely on the idea of voter equality, claiming that counting ineligible voters when drawing districts inflates the importance of eligible voters in the district.

Texas, like all other states with some slight exceptions, uses total population numbers from the decennial census as the basis for its redistricting plans. The Constitution requires districts to have about the same number of people in them. The standard for Congressional districts is particularly strict, requiring each district to be equal in population “as nearly as is practicable.” If any Congressional district is smaller than the average district, also known as the ideal district size, then its size must be explicitly justified.

The rules are looser for state legislatures like the Texas Senate that the case targeted specifically. Court precedent requires state districts to be “substantially” equal. In practice, this means that if the size of a state’s largest district is within 10 percent of the size of the smallest district they are generally acceptable to the Constitution’s standards. There are some cases where district sizes deviate from that norm, notably to make exceptions for districts that meet minority representation requirements in accordance with the voting rights act.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Alito and Thomas wrote concurring opinions. In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg concludes,

Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population.

She also notes the fact that non-voters have legitimate interests in public policy as they often receive government services.

The opinion largely focuses on the fact that based on historical precedent, states should not be forced to change the ways in which they draw districts. However, in the opinion Ginsburg acknowledges that she is not ruling on whether a state could switch its redistricting process to a system that only looks at eligible voters–leaving that question open for a future legal challenge. While states will not be forced to change the way they draw districts, they could conceivably change to a system that only counts people who can vote.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Supreme Court Upholds “One Person, One Vote” appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the discussion surrounding the size of the U.S. prison population fails to take into account the role of crime rates. Research has found that certain policies lead to harsher punishments for crimes and that these policies can vary between states. A key example is the use of strict sentencing laws and prosecutors’ growing tendency to seek felony charges for crimes, both of which have been used to explain the massive growth in the number of American prisoners over the past several decades.

Underlying all of this is the idea that certain policies are responsible for high rates of imprisonment, meaning that some states are more punitive than others. But we haven’t been able to measure how exactly this varies between states and what is responsible for the change. A new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts attempts to solve this dilemma. Researchers at Pew created a new calculation called the punishment rate, which looks at the connection between crime rates and incarceration levels to determine which states tend to punish criminals more than others based on the frequency and severity of crime.

Read More: The Punishment Rate: A New Way to Look at the U.S. Prison System

The Pew Charitable Trusts study ranks states based on their punishment rates to see which are the most punitive. The researchers found that as incarceration rates rose dramatically between 1983 and 2013, so too did punishment rates but that increase varied widely among  states.

The map below shows the Pew Charitable Trusts’ calculations for the change in punishment rates between 1983 and 2013. Darker red colors indicate a greater positive change.

If reading on mobile, use landscape view for best results or open the map in a new tab.

As the map indicates, Colorado experienced the largest change in its punishment rate between 1983 and 2013, going up 417 percent over the 30-year period. While all states saw their punishment rates increase over this period the increases were more modest in some–in states like North and South Carolina the punishment rate went up by less than 20 percent.

It’s important to note that the punishment rate measure does have its drawbacks, most notably the fact that it can’t account for drug-related imprisonment in its crime rate weighting–meaning that states with strict drug laws but low levels of other crimes are rated as more punitive because such crimes aren’t accounted for in the crime rate statistics. This is because the FBI data used to measure crime rates does not track every crime that can be punished with jail time. The researchers acknowledge this but argue that the measurement still provides insight into the larger trends at play and will hopefully prompt states to take a closer at whether their policies lead to excessive punishment for certain crimes.

While the map above highlights the states that saw the largest changes in their punishment rates, it’s also interesting to look at where each state currently stands. Pew Charitable Trusts ranks each state based on its punishment rate in 2013, the most recent year with the necessary data available. See the chart below for the full rankings by state.

If on reading mobile, use landscape view for best results.

When it comes to the rankings, most states with high punishment rates also have high incarceration rates, meaning that the imprisonment rate is often a good way to determine how punitive many states are. However, the researchers did find several outliers. In their report, the researchers find 17 states whose punishment rate ranking differs from their incarceration rate ranking by more than 10 spots, illustrating a punishment mismatch. They conclude:

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming each ranked much higher in their punishment rates than in their imprisonment rates. In other words, these states punished crime significantly more than their imprisonment rates show. The opposite was true for Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, and New Mexico.

These findings show that simply looking at the incarceration rates does not provide the full picture when it comes to how punitive a state is. A state may have a high rate of incarceration, but that might also be related to relatively high levels of serious crime. Looking at punishment rates help us understand which states have policies that tend to be more punitive, and hopefully, this will lead policymakers to determine whether such punishments are truly appropriate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Which States are the Most Punitive When it Comes to Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

Most people know that the prison population in the United States has grown dramatically over the past several decades. While it’s true that the number of people in U.S. prisons has grown significantly, we don’t have a concrete understanding of how that growth compares to changes in crime rates–are more people sent to prison because there was more crime or did we start punishing crime more? The Pew Charitable Trusts attempts to fill that gap with its punishment rate calculation, which provides some interesting details about how punishment varies over time and between states.

According to the Public Safety Performance Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, the imprisonment rate increased by 149 percent between 1983 and 2013 while the punishment rate increased by 165 percent for the United States as a whole. In its research, Pew noticed that all states became more punitive from 1983 to 2013, but the changes varied widely among states.

With its new punishment rate measurement, Pew sought to look at the prison population relative to both the frequency and severity of crime in each state. Doing so helps provide a better understanding of how the incarceration rate changed relative to the prevalence of serious crime. Looking at imprisonment rates in the context of crime rates also helps illustrate differences in how states punish crime and whether certain states are more punitive than others.

Based on the report’s findings, Mississippi’s punishment rate of 818  in 2013 was the highest among all of the states and significantly greater than the national average, which was 477 that year. On the other side of the spectrum is Maine, which had a punishment rate of just 231. In the 30-year period that the researchers analyzed, Colorado experienced the largest increase in its punishment rate, going up 417 percent between 1983 and 2013.

For a full breakdown of the report’s findings and a look at each state’s ranking, you can read more here.

The researchers looked at instances of violent crime using data from the FBI’s uniform crime reporting program for all seven Part I offenses–murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. They then weighed each crime according to its severity, which was determined by the average length of a prison sentence for each crime.

In the end, the authors were able to determine which states were the most punitive based on how many people they imprisoned in relation to the frequency and severity of crime. A state with a relatively low rate of serious crime but a high prison population would have a high punishment rate, indicating that it is more punitive than other states.

While the Pew Charitable Trusts report provides some much-needed context to discussions of the U.S. prison system, it’s important to note that the measure is still far from perfect. In his thoughtful critique of Pew’s research, Tom Meagher at the Marshall Project notes that the punishment rate metric uses the best available information, but its limitations highlight the inherent challenges in measuring the criminal justice system.

Arguably the most significant gap in the measurement is the difficulty that the model has taking drug offenses into account. Drug crimes have been one of the largest contributors to the growth in the prison population, but because they are not tracked by the FBI’s uniform crime reporting system the weighting model cannot take them into account.

In the brief on the punishment rate, the researchers address the issue of drug crime and other offenses not tracked by the FBI, noting:

Although the imprisonment rate counts drug offenders—who make up nearly a fifth of the state prison population—drug crimes are not counted among the FBI’s Part I offenses, so the severity-weighted crime rate does not include them.

Pew acknowledges these drawbacks but argues that the punishment rate can still provide important context when looking at the criminal justice system. While there are imperfections in the data and limitations in terms of what the measurement can tell us, looking at punishment rates and how they vary across states can help understand the way in which prisons are utilized in the criminal justice system.

The report also doesn’t get into why exactly both incarceration and punishment rates increased over the 30-year period, but it does point to existing research that explains, at least in part, the trend. The authors note that changes in policies, rather than crime rates, largely explain the imprisonment growth. Ultimately they conclude, “States that imprison a large share of their residents, for example, can have a high crime rate or a low one; the same is true for states that lock up a small proportion of their populations.” While the report may not tell people which policies are responsible for potentially unnecessary levels of punishment, it may prompt states to start looking at the effects of their criminal justice decisions.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Punishment Rate: A New Way to Look at the U.S. Prison System appeared first on Law Street.

Since Colorado became one of the first states to formally legalize recreational marijuana, there have been many attempts to stop legalization in its tracks. But the most interesting, and arguably the most promising attempt, was Nebraska and Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Colorado, which allege that since Colorado legalized weed, both states face an increased burden on their law enforcement due to marijuana coming in from Colorado. The Supreme Court dashed both states’ hopes on Monday when it declined to hear the case, but still this might not be the end of the story.

The lawsuit claims that Colorado’s marijuana legalization is unlawful for a number of reasons, from violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, to going against international treaties adopted by the United States. Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act during Nixon’s presidency, which categorized Marijuana as a Schedule I drug making it illegal and placing some of the strictest restrictions on its use and sale. The Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the Constitution states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land” and supersedes state laws, which effectively makes Colorado’s legalization unconstitutional.

The lawsuit claims:

In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States’ own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.

However, in light of many states’ efforts to legalize marijuana, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance that largely allows states to move forward without federal interference. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo highlighting eight enforcement priorities, including things like preventing marijuana distribution to minors and stopping marijuana-related violence. But the memo notes that “Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.” He further says that if state laws sufficiently regulate marijuana to deal with the DOJ’s enforcement priorities, then the federal government will largely leave states alone. This essentially meant that states would be free to legalize as long as they created a strong enough regulatory system to protect the priorities outlined by the DOJ.

So that explains why the federal government didn’t stop the legalization, but what happens when others challenge the law? That’s how we got here, with Nebraska and Oklahoma suing Colorado after voters passed Amendment 64 back in 2012. The lawsuit was sent directly to the Supreme Court, which has “original jurisdiction” over disputes between states, meaning that such cases begin at the Supreme Court and do not need to go through the traditional appellate process first.

After the Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit, Justices Thomas and Alito–both of whom are pretty conservative–dissented primarily because of the nature of the court’s original jurisdiction. In his dissent, Justice Thomas writes, “Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it.” He argues that, regardless of his or the other justices’ desired outcomes, the court has a duty to hear the case because it is the only body that can resolve these disputes.

But others have noted that the Nebraska and Oklahoma’s attorneys general still may be able to take the case to a lower court. Robert Mikos, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, told the Cannabist that the two states could pursue their case in a district court. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief calling for them to not take up the case. He claimed that doing so would be a “unwarranted expansion of the Court’s original jurisdiction” because it would need to argue that one state’s laws caused the illegal actions of people in bordering states. He also argues that hearing the case would be unwarranted because the dispute could be handled by a circuit court.

Many were not surprised when the court ultimately declined to hear the case. Cases between states are typically pretty rare and the court has often refused to hear them in the past. As the Federal Judicial Center notes, “Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing.” Now it’s up to the Nebraska and Oklahoma to decide whether they want to pursue the case in a different court.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Remains Legal in Colorado, SCOTUS Declines to Hear Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the financial crisis, many have grown to dislike and mistrust Wall Street and the financial services industry. Well, a new working paper may validate some of those feelings, particularly when it comes to financial advisers.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota found that roughly 7 percent of financial advisers have a misconduct record–ranging from selling their clients unsuitable investments to fraudulent behavior. But the paper’s most striking findings relate to what happens after a financial adviser commits misconduct and how that shapes the industry as a whole. The researchers used the BrokerCheck database to look at the disclosure records of financial advisers from 2005 to 2015.

For most young people, the thought of hiring a financial adviser seems as foreign as hiring a lawyer to write your will; figuring out how to file your taxes may be much more pressing than making a plan for retirement. But the report’s findings offer some important insight into the role of financial advisers as well as customers who tend to fall victim to misconduct.

The researchers looked at only six of the 25 disclosure categories in order to focus specifically on fraud and misconduct. They also included pending disputes in order to avoid including disclosures that may be dismissed in the future. While the range of misconduct varies, it does tend to be significant. According to the data they analyzed, the median settlement for misconduct was $40,000.

The paper has four major findings altogether:

1. Roughly 7 percent of nearly 650 thousand registered financial advisers have misconduct records based on data from 2005 to 2015.
2. Advisers with a record of misconduct are more than five times as likely to commit future misconduct than the average adviser.
3. While about half of advisers who commit misconduct lose their jobs afterward, 44 percent are reemployed within a year and firms that tend  to hire these offenders also have high rates of previous misconduct. The researchers go on to note that these firms may even “specialize in misconduct.”
4. These firms also tend to serve people who have relatively low levels of education, high incomes, and the elderly. Existing research indicates that these individuals have lower levels of financial literacy and may have a harder time identifying misconduct or fraud.

When unpacking these findings two important points emerge. First, companies can be surprisingly strict when it comes to misconduct, often firing employees who commit abuses. But at the same time, those who do lose their jobs often manage to stay in the industry, though on average they go to less prestigious companies and take a pay cut. The firms that tend to hire people with a misconduct record also have issues with misconduct themselves.

FINRA created the disclosure system and the BrokerCheck database to improve transparency for customers looking for financial advisers, but the researchers found that despite consumers’ ability to look up the record of potential advisers, misconduct continues at higher levels than you might expect. They argue that this is likely because some customers are less sophisticated than others and may not know how to find or interpret certain disclosures.

Researchers compared the locations of these advisers with Census Bureau data. They found, “Misconduct is more common in wealthy, elderly, and less educated counties… The latter two categories have generally been associated with low levels of financial sophistication.” While these findings are not definitive and don’t prove causation, the connection between where fraud happens and those vulnerable to it is particularly striking. Ultimately, the researchers concluded:

Our findings suggest that a natural policy response to lowering misconduct is an increase in market transparency and in policies helping unsophisticated consumers access more information. Several recent efforts by regulators, such as the establishment and promotion of FINRA’s BrokerCheck website, have been along these lines.

FINRA, the independent regulatory authority that oversees financial advisers and much of the financial industry, has been taking steps to improve transparency and the industry’s culture, but these findings suggest that misconduct and fraud remains a significant problem for the financial advice industry.

The financial crisis was a formative period for most Millennials, so it’s clear why many young adults have moved away from more traditional financial advisors. Millennials tend to gravitate toward different, often tech-based, solutions for financial planning rather than hiring someone for advice. That, coupled with the unique financial burden placed on new adults, puts Millennials in a notably different financial situation with different goals than what their parents and grandparents might have. Based on the findings of this working paper, that skepticism may be warranted.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should We Trust Financial Advisers? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, voters in five states and Republicans in the North Mariana Islands will turn out to participate in their caucuses and primaries, but in one state, the electorate just got a little bit bigger. After a court ruling last week, registered 17-year-olds in Ohio will have the right to participate in the state’s primary elections on Tuesday, going against the Ohio secretary of state’s earlier interpretation of Ohio law.

The ruling, which came down in favor of nine 17-year-olds in Ohio, was praised by the Bernie Sanders campaign, the ACLU of Ohio, the League of Women Voters in Ohio, and the Fair Elections Network, all of which either sent letters or filed lawsuits against the secretary of state’s interpretation. According to FairVote, a non-partisan voting reform advocacy group, Ohio is now one of 23 states in which 17-year-olds who will be 18 before the general election can participate in at least one party’s primary.

According to Ohio law, any eligible voter who will be 18 on or before the date of the general election may vote in their party’s primary election, even if they are not 18 at that point. Here’s the official text of the law:

At a primary election every qualified elector who is or will be on the day of the next general election eighteen or more years of age, and who is a member of or is affiliated with the political party whose primary election ballot he desires to vote, shall be entitled to vote such ballot at the primary election.

So what caused the problem? While the statute may seem pretty clear, the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s interpretation of the law took issue with 17-year-olds’ participation due to the nature of primary elections. Unlike regular elections, voters in primary elections technically elect delegates who go on to nominate a candidate at the parties respective conventions. The plaintiffs argue that electing delegates is the same as nominating, while Secretary of State Husted disagrees. Husted’s argument differentiates between votes that nominate and votes that elect. He claims that because the election is for delegates, voters who are not 18 cannot weigh in on the presidential election.

Ohio allows voters who are not 18 but will be by the time of the general election to participate in primary elections, but they are not allowed to vote on issues or directly elect party committee members–which seems to be the basis of Husted’s interpretation. However, in the complaint, the plaintiffs say that based on the way Ohio defines primary elections, as “an election held for the purpose of nominating persons as candidates of political parties for election to offices,” Husted’s interpretation has no basis. Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Richard Frye agreed, concluding that in the case of presidential primaries, voting to elect delegates has the same effect as nominating, and therefore, 17-year-olds should be entitled to cast a ballot.

After the ruling was handed down, Husted’s office issued a statement noting its disagreement with the judge, but ultimately saying that it would follow the ruling and not appeal. In the statement, Husted says, “I believe that Ohio law is clear and that my office has properly administered the law, just as previous Democrat and Republican Secretaries of State over the last two decades have done,” but added that he will follow the ruling and not challenge it further. He also notes, “Our elections system needs more stability and less chaos. This last minute legislating from the bench on election law has to stop.”

While the ruling may make it difficult for Ohio elections officials to properly count early voting from 17-year-olds, the judge instructed them to make all possible efforts to include their votes in the final count. While the ruling will likely only affect a small number of voters–individuals born between March 15 and November 8, 1999–it does set a clear precedent for the future.

Voting advocacy organizations like FairVote emphasize the potential benefits of lowering the voting age. By allowing individuals to vote when they are younger, they are more likely to make voting a habit and participate in civic life as they grow older. On balance, it seems like the ruling will be a net positive for young Ohioans.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Grants Some 17-Year-Old Ohioans the Right to Vote appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that Trump rallies are raucous affairs, in fact, that’s probably putting it mildly. On Friday night, Trump even cancelled a campaign event due to what he called security concerns, although the decision was made by the campaign and not local police.

A lot of blame has been passed around for the violence and the underlying forces that create it, but the true responsibility lies with Trump and his supporters engaging in it. When asked about his responsibility Trump merely deflects, arguing that he can’t be held responsible for his protestors. But he can, and more to the point, he should be, because it is clear that he plays a role in this violence.

Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2016

If you’ve watched coverage of Trump’s campaign closely, you’ve undoubtedly seen clips of him interacting with the crowds at his rallies. Several people have collected all the instances of violence so I won’t go into every example, but let’s take a closer look at how he responds. It’s not that Trump deflects or shrugs off responsibility for the violence, he condones and promotes it. He justifies what happens by saying that his supporters are passionate and that it’s beautiful to watch. But he also goes a step further at his events. When protesters attempt to disrupt a speech, he engages with them and the crowd calling on people to kick his opponents out, he’s repeatedly offered to pay legal fees for supporters who beat up protestors, and he trashes protestors while praising people who attack them.

Another high profile incident happened recently when Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields was hurt at a campaign event. When walking up to ask Trump a question, Fields was aggressively pulled away from the candidate, leaving several bruises on her arm. A Washington Post reporter who saw the incident wrote that Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was the one who assaulted Fields. Video of the incident is unclear and the Trump Campaign and Breitbart have argued that it wasn’t Lewandowski. However Fields, Breitbart’s Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, and spokesperson Kurt Bardella have all severed ties with the site, alleging that the campaign and the website are lying.

To be fair, some may criticize the media for playing up what happened to Michelle Fields. Journalists are very interested in what happens to other journalists so naturally this case has gotten a lot of coverage, but this isn’t an isolated incident and the possibility that her assault was from someone inside the Trump campaign makes it all the more concerning.

But more than that, the violence that goes on at Trump rallies and his response to it is emblematic of how Trump deals with things that are no longer acceptable in the United States. An example of this is the way he dealt with an issue surrounding support from the Ku Klux Klan. After David Duke, an infamous Klan leader, spoke out to support Donald Trump, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Trump if he would denounce Duke and the Klan in an interview. Trump’s response was troubling to say the least. He initially said that he didn’t know anything about David Duke then danced around the issue for several days, claiming that there was a problem with his earpiece during the interview and couldn’t hear the question. While Trump eventually made a clear disavowal of David Duke and the KKK, he took his time and sent a signal to his supporters.

This episode sparked a lot of debate, but arguably the best exchange occurred between two CNN commentators–Van Jones, an activist and former Obama Administration advisor, and Jeffrey Lord a former official in the Reagan administration. They debate Trump’s rhetoric, which Jones calls “playing funny with the Klan.” The altercation created a very compelling scene:

Ultimately, what all this tells us is that Trump’s actions speak to his leadership style–a style where he will refuse to take responsibility for his actions and the resulting actions of others, where he’ll justify violence with “passion,” and allow people to harm his opponents without intervening. It no longer seems like a stretch to think that a Trump presidency, with Trump in control of law enforcement agencies and the authority to issue unconditional pardons, could be particularly violent. And that’s just a question of leadership. When it comes to policy, Trump constantly misdirects, misinforms, and even outright lies to the public.

In the meantime, little has been done to stop Trump or challenge him to own up for what happens at his rallies. Now we are left waiting for the next incident at a Trump event, maybe it’s a serious injury, maybe it’s worse.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump and the Violence that Follows Him appeared first on Law Street.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate managed to pass a bill that would create new block grants for states and government agencies to fund prevention, education, and treatment for opioid addiction. These efforts come as drug overdose deaths reached the highest level in history in 2014, surpassing traffic and gun-related deaths. Opioid overdoses, which involve drugs like prescription painkillers and heroin, make up the majority of drug overdoses and were involved in 28,647 deaths in 2014 based on data from the CDC.

The increase in drug deaths has been driven by a rise in painkiller and heroin overdoses, which were the cause of six in 10 overdose deaths in 2014. Opioid-related deaths have been steadily increasing for over a decade, going up 200 percent since 2000. Heroin overdoses alone tripled between 2010 and 2014.

In light of the epidemic, Congress may now be taking important steps to prevent these deaths. The Comprehensive Addition Recovery Act (CARA) passed the Senate on Thursday with a 94-1 vote. The bill aims to help fund education, treatment, and prevention programs to combat overdose deaths. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Rob Portman have done much of the work to push the bill through the Senate and make drug addiction a national priority.

A central goal of CARA is to increase the availability of Naloxone, a life-saving medication that can counter the effects of an overdose. Expanding law enforcement and first responders’ access to Naloxone can have significant effects on efforts to combat overdoses. Based on the CDC’s analysis of Naloxone training programs, between 1996 and 2010 about 53,000 people were trained to use the drug, resulting in over 10,000 overdose reversals.

The bill also prioritizes aid to states with laws that reduce liability for people administering Naloxone, which may encourage states to adopt similar laws in order to encourage responders to use the drug without fear of a lawsuit in the event of complications.

Provisions in CARA also seek to reduce misuse and overprescription of painkillers, which is a large contributor to drug overdoses. The bill would create a task force to issue new standards for painkiller prescription as well as implement safeguards to ensure proper disposal of unused medications to prevent children from accessing them.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is its focus on treatment. Not only would it help increase funding for evidence-based treatment programs, it would also reinforce the idea that drug addiction should be viewed as a disease that should be treated rather than punished. By funding treatment alternatives to incarceration, the bill could help shift drug policy toward efforts that reduce dependency rather than merely penalizing it.

While CARA has broad-based bipartisan support, it still has some challenges. It initially faced difficulty in the Senate after New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen attempted to add a Democratic-backed amendment calling for $600 million in additional emergency funding. The Republican leadership in the Senate holds that sufficient funding already exists for the legislation. The bill will also need to pass the House, where an identical piece of legislation is currently in committee. Relative to most bills, CARA has a decent chance of passing as it has been well received by both parties and the White House, but election year politics could end up derailing these efforts.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Passes Bill to Fight Opioid Addiction and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Older generations love to disparage Millennials, calling them lazy and self-absorbed, while Millennials shoot back saying that older generations don’t realize how good they had it when the economy worked for them (and we do so with memes because we’re more tech-savvy). These feuding stereotypes and generalizations will continue, but a recent analysis puts the generation gap in more concrete terms. According to a new report from the Guardian, Millennials have been the victims of a “30-year economic betrayal.”

Using exclusive data from the Luxembourg Income Study, the Guardian found that across many developed countries, the Millennial generation has been at a distinct disadvantage relative to past generations. In its analysis sponsored by the Joseph Roundtree Reform Trust, the Guardian looked at income data for eight of the largest developed countries in the world–the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Australia.

The report’s striking conclusions illustrate the extent to which a range of factors have deeply hurt Millennials’ economic prospects, the report finds:

A combination of debt, joblessness, globalization, demographics and rising house prices is depressing the incomes and prospects of millions of young people across the developed world, resulting in unprecedented inequality between generations.

Using a massive dataset, the Guardian puts the economic disadvantages of the Millennial generation in context. The consequences of decades-long economic trends, Millennials are at a unique disadvantage relative to previous generations.

So how are all of these trends manifesting themselves? Well, if you’re a Millennial you probably already know. We’re more likely to rent than own our own home, and a much higher percentage of Millennials live at home relative to past generations. Among the countries that the Guardian looked at, just over 25 percent of Millennials currently live at home, including 10 percent of men aged 30 to 34. In 1999, less than 20 percent of those aged 20 to 34 in Generation X lived at home. And important life milestones like homeownership, marriage, and childbearing are put off by Millennials for economic reasons.

Findings from a New York Fed report further explain the way economic circumstances have shaped the lives of Millennials. The researchers note how the relationship between housing prices, student debt, and local economic growth helps explain why more Millennials are living together. And they found a strong connection between the cost of education and its related debt to the likelihood that young adults will live with their parents.

Looking at relative incomes paints an even starker picture. For example, the Guardian finds that adults aged 20 to 24 in the United States have 31 percent less disposable income when adjusted for inflation relative to the same age group back in 1979. At the same time, the disposable incomes of adults aged 50 to 54 have actually increased by more than 32 percent. Put another way, the 20 to 24 age group has seen its disposable income fall by $3,389 in real terms while the 50 to 54 age group has seen theirs increase by $5,176 relative to 1979. The disadvantages of Millennials hold true relative to other age groups and to the national average. For more details check out the Guardian’s visualization.

So what exactly is to blame for the new burden placed on the younger generation? Based on the available evidence, there seem to be several different factors that contributed to the current situation. As globalization increases, so too does competition for jobs. Real estate prices have also made it particularly difficult for Millennials to buy homes or even move out of their parents’ house. The growing importance of a college degree has landed many Millennials in a significant amount of debt before they even begin their careers. While getting a degree may pay off in the form of higher income later in life, debt burdens early on can delay economic independence. While Baby Boomers like to lament the fact that their kids still live at home, the underlying cause is likely economic and not a lack of motivation.

Past generations may not have intentionally made life difficult for Millennials, but it’s also becoming clear that they could have done more to help, particularly as their wellbeing increased. As Jim Tankersly at the Washington Post points out, Baby Boomers were born into a period of sustained economic growth and have benefitted tremendously from it. But at the same time they did little to reduce the burden for future generations. As the ratio of national debt to GDP reaches unprecedented levels, inaction on climate change continues, and the cost of the social safety net rises, Millennials will need to foot the bill.

This is particularly stark in certain countries–as the Guardian finds, “for the first time in France, recent pensioners generated more disposable income than families headed by a person under 50. In Italy the average under-35 became poorer than average pensioners under 80.”

Taken together, decades-long economic trends have made life difficult for many people in the developed world, but the burden has also disproportionately hit Millennials as other generations benefit. While it may be difficult to look to past generations and lay blame, it’s also fair to question whether they could have done more to prevent their children from paying such a high price.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Economic Betrayal” Hurting Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

Standing in front of hundreds of people at the University of Utah and thousands of people watching on TV and online, Mitt Romney laid down the strongest indictment of Donald Trump from a member of the Republican Party yet. Romney’s powerful speech denounced Trump in no uncertain terms, going further than any Republican has been willing to in this election cycle so far.

Although his attempt and attempts like it will likely fail–and some even argue that his speech could help Trump–Mitt Romney moved into uncharted territory for the party and its efforts to stop its front-runner. It’s now clear that Romney and many of his fellow more traditional Republicans won’t go down without a fight.

Romney described Trump using Trump’s own words–calling him a phony and a fraud–in an attempt to hurt his appeal as a straight-talking, anti-politician. Romney even threw in a couple sharp one-liners like, “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.” Despite a couple quick quips, Romney maintained his status as a well-respected and well-spoken conservative.

In his strongest criticism, Romney summed up what a Trump presidency would do to the country:

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

You can watch Romney’s speech below and read his prepared remarks here.

In many ways, the content of Romney’s criticism was predictable. He reflected the many complaints that Republicans and even Democrats have with Trump. While there have been multiple big pushes in the “Never Trump” movement, Romney marks a large and visible step forward: the party’s most recent nominee wrote a speech meant specifically to take down Trump.

Along with Romney is the National Review’s editorial board, who published a blistering editorial making the distinctly conservative case against Donald Trump. On the morning of Romney’s speech, several prominent Republican national security leaders also signed an open letter denouncing Trump and his foreign policy views.

The emerging ‘stop Trump’ faction of the Republican Party is starting to make its efforts much more public than before and Mitt Romney’s speech may be the start of a very significant split in the party. Romney’s attack is in many ways unprecedented. The New York Times even asked several historians if they could draw a parallel from past elections and most found it very difficult to identify a case in which a prominent politician went after a person in his or her own party. While it may not end up being all that effective in terms of its consequences for Trump’s support, it is clear that Romney’s speech marks a pretty significant move from the Republican Party to thwart its front-runner.

As this new faction comes together, so too does a new strategy to take down Trump. Republicans are calling for an all-out effort to prevent Trump from earning a majority of the delegates. Because party rules require an outright majority to win the nomination, members of the stop Trump coalition have started calling on people to vote for the most viable alternative in each state. In his speech, Mitt Romney made a similar case when he said, “Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.”

As far-fetched as it may seem, it appears as if a contested convention is the only option for Trump’s opponents within the Republican Party. In the event that Trump does not have a majority of the delegates at the time of the convention, the delegates will participate in a second round of voting in which they are no longer bound to vote for a specific candidate. Some Republicans hope that if a contested convention occurs, elected Trump delegates could defect to support a more establishment-friendly candidate.

Not only did Romney advocate for such a strategy in his speech, he gave a hint, albeit a very subtle one, that he might be interested in coming in to save the party as a consensus candidate at the convention. He notes that this election has already broken from any sort of historical precedent and that a divided party in the primaries is preferable to one unified behind Trump.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mitt Romney’s Last Stand appeared first on Law Street.

While it feels like the presidential campaign started ages ago, and in many ways it has, a relatively small number of primaries and caucuses have actually taken place. But all of that is soon to change–Super Tuesday is here.

What is Super Tuesday?

Tuesday, March 1 gets this fun-sounding name because it is the day when more states hold primaries and caucuses than any other day in the primary season. While the race has been going at full steam for the past several months, only a small number of the total delegates have been formally awarded. So far, about 5 percent of the total delegates have been awarded for Republicans and less than 4 percent for Democrats. But that will change very quickly in the month of March. On Super Tuesday, there are 865 delegates up for grabs for the Democrats and 595 for Republicans. At the end of the day, 24 percent of the total delegates for Democrats will be awarded and about 30 percent for Republicans.

So Who Votes?

Both parties will hold caucuses or primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Republicans will also hold a caucus in Alaska and Democrats will caucus in American Samoa and Colorado. Additionally, Democrats abroad will vote in sites across 40 different countries until March 8.

What to Expect: Democrats

While this election has been as unpredictable as ever, recent polls do give us some clues as to what we can expect on Tuesday. As it currently stands, the two frontrunners will seem positioned to build on their lead.

Hillary Clinton is coming off of two recent victories in Nevada and South Carolina, the latter of which she won by nearly 75 percent of the vote. While Sanders has proven to be a much stronger candidate than many anticipated, particularly when it comes to fundraising, Clinton still has a commanding lead when you look at pledged delegates and superdelegates.

The Super Tuesday electorate is also particularly favorable for Clinton. With an endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus and high favorability ratings from black voters, we can expect a high turnout among black voters in many Super Tuesday states, where they make up a large percentage of Democratic voters. NPR has a nice illustration of Clinton’s advantage in its discussion of the ideal outcomes for both of the Democratic Candidates. According to NPR, an ideal scenario for Sanders would leave him up by just one delegate at the end of the day. But for Clinton, an ideal outcome would be leading by more than 150 of the Super Tuesday delegates. Put simply, if everything goes well for Sanders his campaign’s best hope is, essentially, to break even. It’s also important to note that Democrats allocate delegates proportionally based on the share of the popular vote or caucus precinct outcomes, which gives Sanders more opportunities to win delegates.

What to Expect: Republicans

On the Republican side, polls suggest that frontrunner Donald Trump will come away with a pretty significant victory. FiveThirtyEight has a rundown of the polls in Super Tuesday states, but Trump is generally the favorite in most states. One important exception is Texas, as Ted Cruz has managed to maintain a significant lead in his home state despite Trump’s nationwide surge.

Texas also has the most delegates up for grabs on Tuesday, as 108 of the state’s 155 delegates will go to the winners of its 35 Congressional districts while 47 of the state’s at-large delegates will be spread out among the top vote earners depending on their margin of victory. While a win in Texas would certainly be a big boost for Cruz, he has an uphill battle in most states.

While the delegate rules vary widely by state on Super Tuesday, there are more opportunities for Republicans to earn large chunks of delegates in one victory compared to the Democrat’s more proportional system. While that may not mean much, the important thing to take away is that the Republican frontrunner after Super Tuesday could come away with a pretty sizable lead.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Super Tuesday 2016: What to Expect appeared first on Law Street.

This is the first article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The second part gives a more in-depth look at his policy proposals and their potential consequences. 

In a recent paper, Lee Drutman, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation’s Political Reform program and professor at John Hopkins University, proposes a bold new plan to end government dysfunction. While he sees several structural issues with the American political system, he remains skeptical of the populist calls for reform, which are generally criticized as being utopian and unrealistic. Drutman’s ideas for reform are certainly interesting and worthy of discussion, but the context in which he talks about reform is equally as important.

Most, including Drutman, believe that significant structural reforms are needed to help get the government working again, but it’s worth questioning whether a populist upheaval is necessary. More to the point: do we need a political revolution?

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Realism and Reform

Before laying out his proposals, Drutman first identifies the inherent challenge involved with reforming the American style of democracy–balancing a government of the people, by the people, and for the people with the need for expert policymakers. He notes that both of these principles, which he calls majority rule and technocracy, have their drawbacks and benefits. It is clearly important to have citizens involved in the government, but at the same time is is important to be realistic about their ability to act as informed voters. Most people don’t have the time to become an expert on every topic, which is why we have a representative democracy in the first place. But experts themselves can get too caught up in policies while losing touch with the needs of the American people. A balance would bring people into the political system to help them choose and empower the proper experts and policy entrepreneurs.

Most liberal visions of reform involve restraining the influence of lobbyists, interest groups, and money in order to end what many see as corruption and return politics to the people. On the conservative side is the desire to reduce the scope of government so that corrupt politicians can’t serve themselves. But Drutman sees both these visions as utopian and unrealistic.

Trying to remove interest groups and big business from the equation has proven to be nearly impossible, and doing so may even impede those who wish to lobby in the public interest. Getting rid of career politicians and stripping Congress of its resources only leads to inefficiency and cutting out “career politicians” makes it harder to create good policy.

Rather than seeking to limit the influence of outside interests or cut government resources, Drutman argues that reforms should try to empower from within. Instead of limiting the amount of dealmaking, maybe we should make more deals, but with everyone sitting at the table. As Drutman puts it, “The answer, in short, is more politics.”

An Uphill Battle

Drutman argues that his plan is the most realistic approach to fix politics, but the existence of polarization and inequality–the very same issues he seeks to resolve–makes his plan all the more challenging to accomplish. But that remains the case with any sort of reform, or in Congress’s current case, passing legislation to begin with.

After discussing the paper on Tuesday, Drutman revealed why he remains hopeful that Congress might consider a change. “You see this over and over again, when members of Congress retire the thing that they complain about is, ‘I spent all of my time raising money and it was no fun’,” he said. New programs like donor matching could actually make Congressmen enjoy their jobs more and feel better about their work. While it remains a tall order, doing so could be in the self-interest of politicians.

Click here to read the second part of the series that focuses on Drutman’s solutions.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do We Need a Political Revolution? appeared first on Law Street.

This is the second article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The first part looks at the debate between realism and reform and why Drutman sees his vision as the most practical approach. 

In his recent paper, Lee Drutman outlines three specific areas of the government that are in dire need of reform–namely, elections, lobbying, and Congressional structure. While Drutman acknowledges that his reforms may not solve all of America’s problems, they provide an important starting point to help make the government more dynamic and capable of responding to new challenges. Read on to see an overview of his plans to fix government dysfunction and empower public interest policymaking.

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Reforming Elections

Drutman’s most ambitious reforms focus on Congressional elections and policies that can help increase voter participation and decrease the barriers for new viewpoints to enter the mainstream. To do so, he calls for two specific changes: creating multimember districts and a small donor matching program.

Most campaign finance reform agendas focus on either overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed unlimited political spending from corporations and interests groups in the form of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, or passing a constitutional amendment with the same goal, both of which are unlikely. Instead, Drutman argues that we shouldn’t focus on restricting influence, rather we should seek to make it more equal with donor matching. Not only will matching promote more contact between candidates and voters, it will lower the barriers for new candidates to run for office, no longer restricted to people with fundraising connections.

Drutman’s plan for small donor matching is based on a program implemented in New York City, where donations under a certain amount receive a 6-to-1 match using public funds. The goal of the program is to put the influence of small donors on the same level as wealthy donors and increase candidates’ communication with voters. In his paper, Drutman provides a powerful illustration of how matching could lead to change:

Under the current system, members of Congress know if they go to a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser, they can pull in $10,000—enough to make it worth their time. By contrast, under the matching proposal, if a constituent can get 30 friends to each pledge $50, that’s $1,500. Then, with the 6-to-1 match, that’s another $9,000, bringing the total up to $10,500—better than the D.C. fundraiser.

In doing so, candidates would be much more interested in actually spending time with voters rather than big donors, as the financial benefits would be much more similar. In fact, existing donor matching and public financing projects have had that effect. In research on New York’s matching program, the Brennan Center for Justice concluded,

The city’s public financing system gives candidates an incentive to reach out to a broader and more diverse array of constituents to fund their campaigns. In so doing, the city’s public financing system appears to have achieved one of its key goals—strengthening the connections between public officials and their constituents.

While it is fair to criticize Drutman’s plan for not changing the role of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, which can take even larger donations, his plan would significantly impact campaign level fundraising.

The change to multimember districts is probably the most significant of Drutman’s proposed changes, but it could have a profound impact on political polarization. One of the biggest issues Drutman sees with our current electoral system is the fact that it has become largely uncompetitive–very few districts are contested in House elections and Senate elections, which involve voters across a state, are only marginally better. This leads him to conclude, “The United States is increasingly becoming two one-party nations, instead of a two-party nation,” meaning that both parties are largely safe within the areas that they currently control based on the natural placement of voters. There is little geographic overlap between voters in both parties.

Drutman’s idea of multimember districts is largely based on work from FairVote, a nonpartisan group seeking to increase the representativeness and fairness in American elections. According to FairVote, ranked choice voting for multi-winner elections would be an American form of proportional representation where any candidates who earn a minimum number of votes is elected. For voters, ranked choice voting is pretty simple–they rank as many candidates as they want in terms of their preference. Counting votes is a little more complicated, but it essentially ensures that all votes are properly distributed to pick the winners, eliminated wasted votes. For more details on the process behind it, you can watch Minnesota Public Radio’s explanatory video.

With a multimember district system that uses ranked choice voting, existing districts would expand to elect multiple representatives at once. When combined with small donor matching, multimember districts could allow a much wider range of potential candidates. The change may also allow for the rise of third party candidates who could not win in a winner-take-all style election, but could reach a vote threshold in larger, multimember districts.

Reforming Influence

Much like his plans to help alleviate issues with campaign finance, Drutman argues that in order to reform lobbying and influence in politics, we need to empower citizens and general welfare organizations. He focuses on expanding the role and resources of these general-interest welfare groups by creating a similar 6-to-1 matching program for “citizen lobbying” organizations. Drutman cites the balance of spending on lobbying, which overwhelmingly comes from businesses and their trade associations. In fact, there are very few groups that represent a wide range of public interest issues.

Drutman’s matching program would help direct money to rebalance lobbying spending and ensure that businesses aren’t the only interests represented on certain issues. Drutman also calls public defender style system for lobbying where public lobbyists would lobby on behalf of underrepresented constituencies in order to ensure that multiple viewpoints are always heard. While his reforms to the lobbying system are arguably his vaguest proposals, the general goal of ensuring that business interests are not the only people at the table when it comes to lobbying could have a notable impact on public policy and, importantly, the public’s perception of political influence.

Reforming Congressional Staffing and Organization

When it comes to Congress, Drutman sees two changes that would empower representatives to create new coalitions and develop better policies that serve the general welfare. First, Drutman would increase the funding available to Congressmen to pay their staff. On its face, this might seem like a ridiculous position–why would we simply want to pay staffers more money? But upon further review, Drutman argues that providing more resources to Congress is the best way to make it resist outside influence.

Drutman and Steve Teles wrote an article in Washington Monthly last year in which they introduced a new way to think about lobbying reform. The central idea behind this vision is, “Instead of trying to weaken the pressure of corporate money in Washington, let’s try strengthening Congress’s capacity to resist it.” By increasing staff salaries, Congress will lessen the influence of the so-called “revolving door,” where staffers work on Capitol Hill for a couple years and then move on to the more lucrative lobbying sector. As Drutman puts it, “Congress has become a farm league for K st.” But if staffers are able to earn more while working for Congress they will be less interested in going to work for big business.

Moreover, by limiting staff turnover and providing additional resources to policymakers, expert lobbyists will have less importance in the policy drafting process. Drutman, an expert on lobbying who wrote a book on the subject, argues that business of lobbying can often be misunderstood. Rather than simply providing campaign donations to Congressmen in order to get their desired policies enacted into law, the role of a lobbyist is more about providing expert advice to Congress. If Congress had more expertise of its own, the need for help from lobbyists would decrease significantly, particularly on arcane issues that directly impact big businesses. In a Q&A with Melinda Henneberger, the Editor-in-Cheif of Roll Call, Drutman laid out the alternatives:

Look, policy is going to get written–do you want it to be written by lobbiests who mostly represent the biggest companies and the wealtheist industries who are not particularly interested in the general welfare. Or do you want it written by staffers who work for democratically accountable members.

A prime example might be the case of financial regulation, where in certain cases lobbyists are essentially writing some of the legislation used the regulation the interests they represent.

Finally, Drutman says that Congress needs to be reorganized in order to prevent the top-down influence of the party leadership. He proposes a new way to decentralize power in Congress by empowering committees and subcommittees. Doing so would create new space for dealmaking and new crosscutting coalitions based on policy goals rather than partisanship. It will also encourage participation from a much wider range of representatives who could bring new viewpoints.

Will it work?

The major policy proposals endorsed by Drutman will clearly change the current state of politics, but it’s still worth questioning whether they will meet his ambitious goals of reducing political polarization and inequality. It is impossible to say for sure whether these policies will solve all of our problems in terms of equity and representation, and Drutman himself concedes that reforms are needed in other areas of the political system, but these policies make those goals more approachable. The underlying objective in each of Drutman’s reform proposals is to increase what he calls “political dynamism,” or the ability of Congress to effectively respond to new challenges with policies that promote the public interest.

Rather than espousing a utopian vision of politics or a narrowly tailored set of policy goals to restrict the outside influence, Drutman wants to realign policymaking to support common goals. He seeks to make government more accountable to each and every citizen while ensuring that Congress has the necessary expertise to govern effectively. So yes, it’s fair to question whether this will fix everything, but if the status quo is the alternative, taking steps to bring experts and the public into the policy process is certainly a laudable goal.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction appeared first on Law Street.

Very few people are satisfied with politics nowadays. Polarization seems to have put Congress in a constant state of gridlock while inequality reaches unprecedented levels. The cycle of wealth and influence also appears to be self-reinforcing as the wealthy are able to influence the government to help protect their advantage. As a result, people have lost nearly all of their faith in public institutions–approval of Congress has reached new lows and people are more disaffected than ever before.

Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and professor at John Hopkins University, makes the case for what America really needs: reform. At an event hosted at the New America Foundation’s offices in Washington, D.C., Drutman presented a paper titled, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.” At the event, Drutman made the case for reform and outlined his bold plan to make government work in an era of political polarization and growing inequality.

Rather than upend the whole system, he calls for evidence-based proposals to realign it in with the common good and end government dysfunction. Rather than cut out the influence of interests groups and big business, maybe we need to establish balance–put people and general welfare interests groups on the same level as corporations.

Click here to read Drutman’s paper titled, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.”

The event left me with a question, and some answers–check out the two parts:

Part I: Do We Need a Political Revolution?

Part II: Lee Drutman’s Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government is Broken, Can We Fix it? appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in Nevada and Republicans in South Carolina took to the polls on Saturday to choose their parties’ nominee for President. When the dust settled, Donald Trump walked away with a commanding lead in the South Carolina primary while Hillary Clinton pulled out ahead in the Nevada primary. The recent contests help solidify the conventional wisdom about the election so far, but much of the analysis is still speculation. While many questions remain, we may soon have answers–Super Tuesday is approaching.

The GOP

Although each party has only held three contests in this year’s election season, the race is starting to take a distinctive shape. Donald Trump has managed to transition his significant lead in national and state polls into a sizeable lead in actual delegate counts after three contests. While most have remained skeptical of Trump throughout the early stages of the election cycle, his lead is becoming more and more difficult to refute.

With a second place finish in Iowa and two first place finishes by sizeable amounts in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Donald Trump sits well ahead of his challengers. Nate Silver at FivetThirtyEight has a nice breakdown of the impending battle between “Trump Optimists” and “Trump Skeptics” that will pan out in the ensuing weeks. While optimists cite Trump’s strong performance in recent contests and continued dominance in the polls, skeptics note that there may be a ceiling for his support; as more establishment-supported candidates drop out Republican voters could rally behind Trump’s most electable challenger.

The Dems

When it comes to the Democratic Party’s race, Hillary Clinton is starting to take more control over the race when it comes to coalition building and endorsements. When it comes to pledged delegates, which are awarded based on the results of state caucuses and primaries, Sanders and Clinton are basically tied. But when you factor in superdelegates–Clinton currently leads with over 500 total delegates while Sanders has just 70–Clinton has a commanding lead and some important momentum from Nevada. On Saturday, Clinton took away 19 delegates and Sanders managed to get 15. In a race to 2,383 delegates, the vast majority remain undetermined.

Sanders has surprised spectators and has proven to be a much stronger opponent than nearly anyone anticipated. But Clinton has managed to earn the support of some very important Democratic constituencies. In addition to a strong lead in superdelegates, who are Democratic Party leaders, Clinton has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus and retains a significant amount of support among union members–two very important Democratic voting blocks.

Hillary Clinton managed to win in Nevada, which is considerably more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two primary states. While there is some debate over Clinton’s success among Latino voters in Nevada, she has managed to maintain a strong support among minority voters. That support is likely to play an important role in the coming primaries. Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight wrote a thorough breakdown of the demographics in the upcoming contests:

While only 13 percent of Nevada caucus-goers in 2016 were black, their share in South Carolina will be much higher (55 percent of South Carolina Democratic primary voters were black in 2008). That’s why Clinton is up by 25 percentage points in the South Carolina polls. Even beyond South Carolina, on Super Tuesday 63 percent of the delegates up for grabs will be in contests with a higher share of African-Americans than Nevada.

While most of the discussion so far rests largely on speculation, the important thing to keep in mind is that our picture of the race will soon get a much-needed dose of clarity–Super Tuesday is just over a week away. On March 1, 11 states vote to allocate around 880 delegates to the Democratic candidates. To put that in perspective, just over 100 pledged delegates have been assigned to candidates so far. The biggest change now is the fact that a lot of delegates are going to be determined very quickly. The pace of the campaign picks up considerably in March, which will tests the organization and reach of every campaign in new ways. The Democratic Party’s proportional system of delegate allocation, which awards candidates delegates based on their share of the popular vote, will likely keep the pledged delegate count close in the coming weeks. But if Clinton manages to take the lead after Super Tuesday, Sanders may have a hard time catching up to her.

Final Takeaways

Super Tuesday will be a big test for the Sanders campaign, which will need to compete with Clinton in a range of primaries spanning several demographic groups. We’ll also have to wait and see if Donald Trump can turn his massive polling lead into actual votes. While the so-called ceiling theory of Trump support will be tested soon, as it currently stands, establishment Republicans have the most to worry about.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Last Weekend, All Eyes are on Super Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

The saying, “The system is rigged” is one of Bernie Sanders’ favorite lines on the campaign trail. He gives speech after speech highlighting economic injustice and inequality that reiterates the same sentiment. It’s why so many of his supporters are passionate in their support for his campaign, but Sanders’ animosity towards the system may expand in the coming months to an additional target: the Democratic Party’s primary system.

When news broke that Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by more than 20 percent, yet may tie Hillary Clinton in delegates, Sanders supporters and Hillary-haters were irate. How could this be? What sort of system lets that happen? Welcome to the primaries, where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. Okay, they matter a little bit, but it’s complicated. To understand the outrage after the New Hampshire primary, you need to look closer at the role of superdelegates.

So in this installment of “Why the Primaries are Weird,” we’ll be diving into everyone’s favorite subject: delegate math–specifically the Democratic Party and its superdelegates.

How do Delegates Work?

Before we get into the absurdity that is superdelegates, let’s do a quick review of how delegates come into play in the primary system. Each state elects delegates, individual party members who are pledged to a certain candidate based on the outcome of the state’s primary or caucus. The way delegates are chosen varies widely by state, but the important thing to know is that they are based on the outcome of a primary or caucus. Generally speaking, delegates are allocated proportionally based on their share of the vote in an individual state’s primary or caucus.

Delegates elected at the state level are then bound to a specific candidate, meaning that when the Democratic and Republican conventions occur after the primaries, elected delegates cast their votes for the candidate that they are pledged to. When all is said and done, the candidate with a majority of the delegates in the party convention wins the nomination and proceeds to the general election.

What about superdelegates?

The process outlined above is the way that Republicans choose their nominee and how the Democrats allocate most of their delegates, but not all. Enter superdelegates, a group of individuals chosen by the party who are allowed to vote in the Democratic Convention alongside the elected pledged delegates. The difference between superdelegates and regular delegates is their “unpledged” nature. Regular delegates are pledged to support a specific candidate based on the outcome of a state’s primary or caucus. Superdelegates are not pledged and are essentially free to vote however they wish at the Democratic Convention.

Superdelegates are Senators, Congressmen, and state party officials, and essentially exist to give the Democratic Party more control over their nominating process. While each party has additional delegates for “party leaders and elected officials” (PLEOs), all Republican PLEOs and most Democratic PLEOs are pledged, meaning that they are bound, at least in some way, to the results of state elections. The remaining unpledged PLEOs are the superdelegates.

To win the Democratic nomination, you need to have at least 50 percent of the 4,763 total delegates, making it a race to 2,382 delegates. Out of the 4,763 total delegates, 712 are unpledged superdelegates, approximately 15 percent. This means that a candidate could conceivably lose the popular vote and still win the nomination with the support of enough superdelegates. This is how Sanders was able to win the popular vote by a massive margin while possibly tying Clinton in the delegate count. Six of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates support Clinton, so the race appears much more even. In fact, Clinton had a large national lead over Sanders before the race even started because of the number of superdelegates who say they will support herm though it is important to note that these superdelegates have up until the Democratic Convention to change their mind.

So… Blame Hillary?

No, you can’t blame Hillary Clinton. This is a perfect example of “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton as a person or as a candidate, but she is not responsible for the Democratic Party’s undemocratic system of choosing its nominee. Sanders, a candidate who isn’t even really a Democrat, is inherently disadvantaged by the system, but that doesn’t make it Clinton’s fault.

I’m not defending Hillary Clinton, I’m just saying that if you are mad about the system, which is understandable, you should be mad at the Democratic Party. But before you claim that superdelegates are just another way that the Democratic Party is sidelining Bernie Sanders, you should remember that this system has been around since the 1980s and probably isn’t going away anytime soon. In a perfect bout of irony, to get rid of superdelegates, the superdelegates themselves would have to make the final decision.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad? appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump finished second in Iowa, no one knew what to expect as he reacted. Would he accept the democratic outcome of the election? Would he lash out at the people of Iowa, which he’s momentarily done in the past? By the end of the night, everyone’s questions were answered when Trump took the stage. Surprising many, Trump’s reaction came across, well, classy. But that wasn’t his last word on the subject; after he had a little more time it seems like he changed his mind.

Here’s his speech in Iowa:

“We finished second and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored. I’m really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted [Cruz] and I want to congratulate all of the incredible candidates including Mike Huckabee who’s become a really good friend of mine,” Trump said in his speech after Cruz was declared the winner. In the speech, he thanked his opponents, he praised his staff, and congratulated the winner. To finish off, he even said he’d consider coming back to Iowa to buy a farm.

But Trump’s good will and acceptance didn’t last long. Naturally, Trump’s first inclination was to go after the media. After tweeting about his great experience in Iowa and how he was satisfied with the outcome, he tweeted, “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” To be fair, he is right that turnout was very high on Monday–almost 40 percent higher than in 2012–and that he fared best among first-time voters.

Trump’s usual assault on the media continued on Twitter, but he eventually shifted focus to Ted Cruz. Once Cruz gave his 32-minute victory speech, Trump quickly shifted tact:

Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

On Wednesday, Trump began an all-out assault on Cruz, accusing him of cheating and stealing the election.

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

And finally, Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and “choice” – a total lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Believe it or not, Trump again has a couple fair points. Cruz was responsible for a legitimately nefarious direct mailer that his campaign sent out to essentially scare people into voting. Many Iowans received a letter from the Cruz campaign with their voting “scores” (which aren’t a real thing) as well as the scores of their neighbors. This strategy is based on a piece of political science research about direct mail and voter turnout, but the Cruz campaign took it to a new extreme. The letters were intended to pressure voters to turn out to improve their “voting score” and it even alleged that the recipients committed some sort of “voting violation.”

The Iowa Secretary of State quickly denounced the mailers, issuing a statement saying,

Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

He went on to note that caucuses are not even conducted by the state government, rather they are under the control of political parties. It is also important to note, however, that Cruz is not alone in his use of extremely misleading mailers, Marco Rubio sent a equally dubious letter to voters as well.

Trump also criticized Cruz’s response to news that Ben Carson was not going to travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. The Carson campaign alleged that Cruz spun the news as if Carson was dropping out of the race in an effort to change the minds of caucus-goers. Cruz eventually apologized saying that spreading the news was fair game, but that a clarification should have been sent out when it was clear that Carson was not leaving the race.

While Trump’s criticism of Cruz has some surprisingly reasonable points, it’s unlikely that his tactics shifted the balance of the elections. As the Washington Post points out, Carson actually outperformed polling predictions and Bloomberg notes that Cruz sent the mailers out to about 3,000 potential voters yet won by more than 6,000 votes.  Ultimately, Trump went so far as to call for a new election, or at least for the existing results to be invalidated.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Over the course of a few days, Donald Trump went from congratulating Ted Cruz on his win to outright calling him a liar and a cheater. But then again, did we really expect anything else?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Might Not be a Gracious Loser After All appeared first on Law Street.

The votes are in, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the official winners of the Iowa caucuses, and the 2016 primary season is officially underway. Now that political commentators have some results to talk about the speculation will likely hit unprecedented levels, but what should we learn from Monday night? Let’s take a quick look at what happened, why it happened, and what we should take away from Iowa.

1. Trump didn’t meet expectations

At the end of the night, Donald Trump was not Iowa’s choice for the Republican nominee. In fact, he almost came in third after a surprise showing from Marco Rubio. How big of a blow this will have on the Trump campaign remains to be seen, but given that the phenomenon surrounding him didn’t quite meet expectations, we can expect to see some less Trump-centric discussion in the rest of the primaries. Trump still maintains a wide lead in New Hampshire so barring any massive shifts in the next week he will likely win there. But his image as a self-proclaimed “winner” was tainted a little last night.

Unlike Trump, Rubio ended up beating expectations with a third place finish. While most polls showed Rubio coming in third, he closed a lot of distance between the two frontrunners in the brief time leading up to the caucus. If you watched his speech Monday night it almost seemed like he won the whole thing, but for the Rubio campaign, a close third finish is a lot like winning.

2. Clinton and Sanders (basically) tied

It took until Tuesday afternoon to come up with the final tally for the Democratic side, but in the end, Hillary Clinton eked out a victory, though just barely. But for all intents and purposes, this race was more or less a tie. The Democrats have 44 delegates at stake here and they will likely be almost completely split between the candidates. Although to be fair, the Democrats have a very confusing process of allocating Iowa’s delegates–Iowan Democrats have their own county, district, and state conventions to determine the delegates to send to the national Democratic Convention where the winner will ultimately be chosen. Republicans, on the other hand, base delegates on the percentage of votes cast for each candidate.

Delegate weirdness aside, the results of caucus voting essentially determine the state’s winner. What’s more, Iowa’s 44 delegates are only an extremely small fraction of the total number of delegates needed to win the actual nomination (Democratic candidates need at least 2,382 of the 4,763 total delegates and Republicans need 1,237 of 2,472). The takeaways from the Iowa caucuses tend to be more momentum or narrative-based than an actual edge in the election. For this reason, you can interpret the results in many ways, but when you consider Iowa’s role in delegate allocation Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are basically tied going into New Hampshire next week.

3. Look at the demographics

To fully understand the outcome in Iowa, it is important to look at the demographics of the Iowa electorate, which put simply, does not look all that much like the rest of the country. The population and voting system in Iowa was ideal for Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. Caucuses tend to attract fewer voters than primaries and those voters are more likely to hold extreme views. This means that Ted Cruz, who is arguably the most conservative candidate in presidential election history, and Bernie Sanders who bills himself as a democratic socialist, were uniquely benefited by the typical Iowan caucus-goer.

New York Times reporter Nate Cohn, has a nice explanation as to why the tie in Iowa might not be enough for Sanders. Given that Sanders is the underdog in the Democratic race, a tie in Iowa could be spun as a significant achievement, but it is also important to note that Iowa and New Hampshire are considerably more favorable to him than other states might be. In terms of population, Iowa is considerably whiter than the rest of the country. According to the 2014 census, the United States as a whole is about 77 percent white, but over 92 percent of Iowans are white and that’s even more so the case in New Hampshire. So far, Hillary Clinton has managed to maintain her support among black voters, an extremely large part of Democratic Party. In some upcoming primary states, like South Carolina, black voters make up a much bigger portion of the electorate, which is part of the reason why Clinton holds a much stronger lead there. 

In Ted Cruz’s case, the high number of evangelical Christians in Iowa helped Cruz push his way to the top. According to exit poll data, 64 percent of Republican caucus voters identified as evangelicals. Tred Cruz won 34 percent of those voters’ support while Donald Trump came in second with 22 percent. Cruz also won the support of voters who identify as “very conservative” by a very wide margin, earning 44 percent of the votes from that cohort.

4. Don’t forget about turnout

It’s also important to recognize how few people vote in caucuses. Monday night’s caucus broke a record for turnout among Republicans, yet just over 185,000 people voted. Even fewer voted in the Democratic caucus, which had just over 171,000 people vote. To put this in perspective, there are over 2.2 million Iowans who are eligible to vote, and 1.5 million registered voters.

Based on the number of people who are eligible to vote, last night’s caucus had a turnout rate of just 15.7 percent. That’s important to keep in mind when talking about the Iowa caucuses, particularly when you couple that with the fact that so few delegates are actually up for grabs. While they may be important for momentum or winnowing the field, the Iowa caucuses involve a particularly small number of Americans.

5. We lost two candidates

By the end of the night, two candidates had officially suspended their campaigns: Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee. While this might be a good sign for those who are hoping to see the field trimmed, it’s probably still too early to call it a trend, particularly in an election cycle when more people have hung around despite abysmal polling numbers.

Also of note, while Ben Carson did not say he was suspending his campaign, he did announce that he is taking a break…but only to change his clothes. Yes, you heard that right, the campaign released a statement saying, “After spending 18 consecutive days on the campaign trail, Dr. Carson needs to go home and get a fresh set of clothes.” I’m not sure how much to read into that, but it does come amid a challenging time for Carson’s campaign. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the field to narrow even further.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Takeaways from the Iowa Caucuses appeared first on Law Street.

Now that we are less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses, the first vote in the 2016 primary season, it is important to know why caucuses are different from primaries and why those differences are important. While both formats serve the same purpose–holding votes to nominate a presidential candidate–there are several misconceptions that may lead to some surprises when results are announced. So, read on to learn about the differences between caucuses and primaries.

The simple difference between the two is that primaries are run by the state government and caucuses are under the purview of state party organizations, namely the Republican and Democratic parties. Now this might seem like a minor distinction, but it does have some influence on who actually turns out to vote, which ultimately can affect the outcome.

The primary system is different from the general elections that most Americans are familiar with. For example, in primaries and caucuses voters cast their ballots for delegates who represent the candidates. Generally speaking, that is the same as voting directly for the candidate, as the delegates go on to formally nominate their candidate at the Democratic and Republican conventions later in the year. But delegate selection varies by state and can range from being proportional to the number of votes cast for a candidate across the state to a winner-take-all system. The point here is not to go into detail about all these variations, but rather to acknowledge that the rules can vary widely by party and by state.

For example, for Democrats in Iowa, vote counting is done by a headcount and caucus-goers can see where others stand. The process can also get pretty complicated. For example, the Democratic caucus in Iowa has a threshold for “viable candidates.” In most of the state’s precincts, if one candidate does not get 15 percent of the room’s vote, his or her supporters are free to pick a different candidate. This rule could prove important come next Monday because as the gap between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders narrows in Iowa, Martin O’Malley supporters could decide the outcome. O’Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, has rarely polled above 5 percent in Iowa.

What is arguably more important than these idiosyncrasies for someone watching the primary process unfold is the key difference between caucuses and primaries. The biggest and most important difference is voter turnout. Put simply, turnout is much, much lower in states that hold caucuses and tends to be less representative of the general population.

Researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School took a closer look at primary election turnouts in a 2009 study. The authors found that presidential primaries have notably low turnout relative to general elections, something that is particularly true for states with caucuses. In 2008, the most recent election without an incumbent president running, in the 12 states where both parties held caucuses, the average turnout was just 6.8 percent of eligible voters. While primaries tend to have higher rates of turnout relative to caucuses, average turnout is considerably lower than general elections, particularly for primaries held toward the end of the primary season.

The Iowa caucus had a record-breaking turnout that year, but even then it only reached 16.3 percent of eligible voters. The researchers provide a pretty stark summary of their findings:

In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking—only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4 percent of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2 percent of Iowa adults. Nevertheless, the 16.3 percent turnout level was not only an all-time Iowa record, it was easily the highest percentage ever recorded for a presidential caucus, and about eight times the average for such contests

Because a caucus is an event hosted and run by political parties, attendance is more than just casting a vote. In fact, the process can take several hours as state parties deal with party business and people have the opportunity to give speeches to try and persuade voters to back their candidate. In contrast, a primary more closely resembles a regular election–you show up to a polling location, ask for your party’s ballot, then cast your vote.

So why does all of this matter? The conventional wisdom suggests that when turnout is lower a certain type of voter tends to participate, namely those who are more extreme than the average voter. There’s some evidence to back this up as well. BYU professors Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope conducted a survey of Americans and matched the respondents to state voter files to actually identify those who actually participated in primaries and caucuses. They, not surprisingly, found that those who attended caucuses were more ideologically extreme than voters in primaries. While this may not dramatically affect the outcome of primary elections, it is an important finding to keep in mind when talking about the primaries.

This is also particularly important in the context of polling because pollsters often have a difficult time identifying who a likely voter actually is. Because of that, poll samples tend to be broader than the small group of voters who participate. It is often important to look at how polls identify likely voters and acknowledge the fact that it is extremely difficult to identify and make contact with the small number of Iowans who show up on caucus day. Polls, particularly those conducted early on, can have a very hard time predicting election outcomes.

Want to Learn More?

Josh Putnam wrote an excellent article for the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog breaking down everything you could ever want to know about presidential primary elections.

Putnam also runs FrontloadingHQ, a blog that dives into the minutia of the primary process as well as state and party rules.

The Council on Foreign Relations published a nice breakdown of the role of delegates in the nominating process back in 2008, most of which holds true today.

The New York Times has the full 2016 primary schedule, which you can even add to your Google calendar if you’re into that kind of thing.

For more details on voter turnout in past elections check out the United States Election Project.

The Pew Research Center has a great analysis of likely voters and their importance to polling.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 is Here: What are the Differences Between Caucuses and Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

Violent crime increased by 1.7 percent nationally in the first half of 2015, according to a preliminary report released by the FBI. Although violent crime was up slightly from January to June last year, that increase comes during a long and continuous drop in violent crime. In every other year since 2007–with the exception of 2012, which saw a slight increase as well–the FBI’s preliminary statistics have showed a drop in violent crime in the first six months of the year.

The FBI’s preliminary semiannual crime publication details crime statistics for different population groups, regions, and individual cities for the first six months of 2015. Several cities experienced notable changes in their violent crime rates. Detroit, Michigan, for instance, experienced a significant decrease in its violent crime numbers relative to the previous year, as violent crime dropped by over 9 percent. The city’s violent crime decreased in every category, particularly incidences of murder, rape, and robbery. In total, Detroit had 581 fewer violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. On the other end of the spectrum was St. Louis, Missouri, which saw its violent crime statistics go up by about 23 percent. Notably, the number of murders went up by 58.6 percent, with 34 additional murders in the first half of 2015.

Many mid-sized cities experienced large changes as well. Rockford, Illinois saw its violent crime increase by roughly the same margin as St. Louis, going up by 23.2 percent. Lansing, Michigan’s capital city, experienced a notable decrease in crime, which fell by nearly 13 percent in the first half of last year.

See how the other cities on Law Street’s crime rankings fared in the FBI’s preliminary statistics:

Dangerous Cities Over 200,000: Detroit, St. Louis See Big Changes

Dangerous Cities Under 200,000: Mixed Bag of Results for Early 2015 Crime

Safest Cities: Five of Top 10 See Crime Decrease in First Half of 2015

According to the FBI’s recent report, changes in violent crime varied widely in different parts of the country. While the Northeast actually reported a 3.2 percent decrease in violent crime, the West saw crime go up by more than 5 percent relative to the first half of 2014. As 2015 progressed, murmurs of a crime increase spread, and while current data suggests that may be the case, such a conclusion remains preliminary. The largest increase by population grouping occurred in cities with populations between 250,000 to 499,999 people–where crime grew by 5.3 percent.

It is important to note that the FBI’s statistics are preliminary and may be revised as the FBI gets more data from local police departments. Additionally, trends may have shifted by the end of the year, which we will not be able to have definitive statistics on until the FBI releases its annual Crime in the United States Publication.

Changes in year-to-year crime statistics have been attributed to a wide variety of developments ranging from new policing tactics to factors as simple as cold weather. While national trends may be able to explain changes in crime rates, it’s best to look at changes on a case by case basis. While the national increase in the first six months of last year is notable, it is also important to realize that crime rates remain near historic lows.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violent Crime Ticks up Slightly in First Half of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Half of the cities on Law Street’s list of Most Dangerous Cities over 200,000 experienced an increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015, following the national trend according to FBI statistics released Tuesday. Violent crime was up approximately 1.7 percent across the United States. St. Louis, Missouri experienced the single largest increase in violent crime in 2015 relative to 2014 with an increase of 22.9 percent. Detroit, Michigan experienced the largest decrease, as the city saw its violent crime drop by over 9 percent in 2014. Two of the top 10 Most Dangerous Cities do not have preliminary data available.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations greater than 200,000 people appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Detroit, Michigan

In the first six months of 2015, Detroit–the most dangerous city over 200,000–continued its downward trend with a notable decrease in violent crime. In total, Detroit had 581 fewer violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in 2014, a drop of over 9 percent. Violent crime was down in every category in Detroit, but the most significant drop occurred in the city’s robbery statistics, which fell by nearly 30 percent last year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -9.2 %
(2014: 6,292; 2015: 5,711)
Murder: -20.7%
(2014: 135 ; 2015:107)
Rape: -17.6%
(2014: 284; 2015: 234)
Robbery: -29%
(2014: 1,589; 2015: 1,128)
Aggravated Assault: -1%
(2014: 4,284; 2015: 4,242)

#2 Memphis, Tennessee

Memphis experienced a slight decrease in violent crime in the first six months of 2015, going down 2.1 percent relative to the previous year. Although Memphis experienced a small increase in aggravated assaults, decreases in all three of the other categories contributed to the overall drop. The largest decreases occurred in the city’s reported rape and robbery statistics, which fell by 10.4 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -2.1%
(2014: 5,633; 2015: 5,517)
Murder: -1.5%
(2014: 65; 2015: 64)
Rape: -10.4%
(2014: 269; 2015: 241)
Robbery: -9.9%
(2014: 1,553; 2015: 1,400)
Aggravated Assault: +1.8%
(2014: 3,746; 2015: 3,812)

#3 Oakland, California

Oakland, California is the #3 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population over 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#4 St. Louis, Missouri

St. Louis experienced a notable increase in violent crime in the first six months of 2015, reporting an increase of 22.9 percent. In total, the city had 522 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the first half of 2014. St. Louis saw increases in three of the four categories of violent crime. One of the most noteworthy increases occurred in its murder statistics, which went from 58 in the first half of 2014 to 92 in the first half of 2015, an increase of almost 60 percent. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +22.9%
(2014: 2,284; 2015: 2,806)
Murder: +58.6%
(2014: 58; 2015: 92)
Rape: -11.8%
(2014: 144; 2015: 127)
Robbery: +40.1%
(2014: 594; 2015: 832)
Aggravated Assault: +17.9
(2014: 1,488; 2015: 1,755)

#5 Birmingham, Alabama

Birmingham, Alabama experienced a modest increase in its reported violent crimes in the first half of 2015. In total, the city had 137 more violent crimes from January to June 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. Higher numbers of robberies and aggravated assaults largely explain the increase overall, which rose by 11.7 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +8.5%
(2014: 1,619; 2015: 1,756)
Murder: +30.4%
(2014: 23; 2015: 30)
Rape: -7.2%
(2014: 83; 2015: 77)
Robbery: +11.7%
(2014: 454; 2015: 507)
Aggravated Assault: +7.8%
(2014: 1,059; 2015: 1,142)

#6 Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Milwaukee, Wisconsin experienced a very slight decrease in crime in the first half of 2015, going down about 1 percent relative to the previous year. Although crime was down overall the city did have a notable spike in murders, which went from 36 in the first half of 2014 to 75 in the first half of 2015, an increase of 108 percent. Aside from murders, the other categories of violent crime either remained constant or decreased. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -0.9%
(2014: 3,957; 2015: 3,921)
Murder: 108.3%
(2014: 36; 2015: 75)
Rape: -12.5%
(2014: 192; 2015: 168)
Robbery: -3.2%
(2014: 1,551; 2015: 1,501)
Aggravated Assault: 0%
(2014: 2,178; 2015: 2,177)

#7 Baltimore, Maryland

Baltimore, Maryland experienced a 6 percent increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015, with 235 more crimes than in the previous year. Much of that increase can be attributed to the city’s higher number of robberies, which went up by 11.3 percent. The city also had a notable increase in murders, going from 99 in 2014 to 144 in 2015, a 45.5 percent increase. Baltimore faced several challenges in terms of policing and crime last year, some of which may not be accounted for in these statistics because they only include data from the first half of the year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +5.9%
(2014: 3,989; 2015: 4,224)
Murder: +45.5
(2014: 99; 2015: 144)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 129 ; 2015 revised definition: 140)
Robbery: +11.3%
(2014: 1,641; 2015: 1,826)
Aggravated Assault: -0.3%
(2014: 2,120; 2015: 2,114)

*Baltimore, Maryland began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#8 Cleveland, Ohio

Cleveland experienced a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of last year, going down 4.4 percent. Much of the city’s overall drop can be attributed to a decrease in the number of reported robberies, which fell by nearly 9 percent. While the city did have an overall drop, it reported an increase in aggravated assaults and murders in the first half of the year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -4.4%
(2014: 2,499; 2015: 2,390)
Murder: +42.3%
(2014: 26; 2015: 37)
Rape: -19.2%
(2014: 266; 2015: 215)
Robbery: -8.7%
(2014: 1,408; 2015: 1,286)
Aggravated Assault: +6.6%
(2014: 799; 2015: 852)

#9 Stockton, California

Stockton, California followed the national trend with a modest increase in its violent crime statistics from January to June last year. In total, Stockton’s violent crime went up by 2.4 percent, reporting 47 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. The largest increase came in the city’s robbery statistics, which were up by over 7 percent. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +2.4%
(2014: 1,972; 2015: 2,019)
Murder: -14.3%
(2014: 21; 2015: 18)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 61; 2015 revised definition: 65)
Robbery: +7.1
(2014: 532; 2015: 570)
Aggravated Assault: +0.6
(2014: 1,358; 2015: 1,366)

*Stockton, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#10 Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana is the #10 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population over 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dangerous Cities Over 200,000: Detroit, St. Louis See Big Changes appeared first on Law Street.

According to FBI statistics released on Tuesday, the United States saw violent crime increase nationally by 1.7 percent in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. But it was a mixed bag for the most dangerous cities with populations between 100,000 and 200,000. Five of the cities saw increases in violent crime, three saw decreases, and two did not have information available from the FBI. Rockford, Illinois, the number two city on the list, saw the largest increase, as violent crime went up 23.2 percent in the first half of last year.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations under 200,000 appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS Over 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Little Rock, Arkansas

Little Rock, Arkansas is the #1 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population between 100,000 and 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Little Rock’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#2 Rockford, Illinois

Rockford saw a sharp increase in violent crime in the first six months of 2015. While there was only a moderate increase in reported rapes and robberies in Rockford, the number of aggravated assaults increased by 28.4 percent. The number of aggravated assaults in Rockford went from 670 in the first half of 2014 to 860 in the same period in 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +23.2%
(2014: 927; 2015: 1,142)
Murder: -10%
(2014: 10; 2015: 9)
Rape: +13%
(2014: 69; 2015: 78)
Robbery: +9.6%
(2014: 178; 2015: 195)
Aggravated Assault: +28.4%
(2014: 670; 2015: 860)

#3 Springfield, Missouri

Springfield, Missouri saw a moderate increase in its violent crime in the first half of 2015. While it seems as though the murder rate experienced a sharp increase based on the percentage change, the increase in raw numbers is relatively low, as the city had two additional murders in 2015. Robbery and aggravated assault increased by 17.1 percent and 15.5 percent respectively, accounting for most of the increase in overall crime. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +12.8%
(2014: 942; 2015: 1,063)
Murder: +40%
(2014: 5; 2015: 7)
Rape: -5.9%
(2014: 136; 2015: 128)
Robbery: +17.1%
(2014: 181; 2015: 212)
Aggravated Assault: +15.5%
(2014: 620; 2015: 716)

#4 Lansing, Michigan

Lansing, Michigan saw a decrease of 12.7 percent in the number of reported violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. With the exception of rape, crime rates fell across the board. Due to the relatively low number of reported rapes in Lansing, the 2.6 percent increase is the result of just one additional offense in 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -12.7%
(2014: 537; 2015: 469)
Murder: -20%
(2014: 5; 2015: 4)
Rape: +2.6%
(2014: 38; 2015: 39)
Robbery: -24.8%
(2014: 109; 2015: 82)
Aggravated Assault: -10.6%
(2014: 385; 2015: 344)

#5 Hartford, Connecticut

Hartford saw a slight increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015. Robbery had a moderate increase of 10.5 percent and aggravated assaults were up but by a very small margin. The number of reported rapes fell noticeably by 31.8 percent relative to the previous year. The murder rate was up by 100 percent, going from 7 in the first half of 2014 to 14 in the first half of 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +3.9 %
(2014: 671; 2015: 697)
Murder: +100%
(2014: 7; 2015: 14)
Rape: -31.8%
(2014: 22; 2015: 15)
Robbery: +10.5%
(2014: 229; 2015: 253)
Aggravated Assault: +0.5%
(2014: 413; 2015: 415)

#6 Springfield, Massachusetts

Violent crime increased by 7.7 percent in Springfield, Massachusetts in the first half of 2015. The number of reported rapes and robberies were both down, but aggravated assault saw a notable increase of 16.3 percent. Additionally, more than twice as many people were murdered in the first half of 2015 as 2014, going from 6 to 13. In total, Hartford had 60 more violent crimes from January to June 2015 than in the same period of the previous year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +7.7%
(2014: 777; 2015: 837)
Murder: +116.7%
(2014: 6; 2015: 13)
Rape: -15.7%
(2014: 51; 2015: 43)
Robbery: -5.4%
(2014: 261; 2015: 247)
Aggravated Assault: +16.3%
(2014: 459; 2015: 534)

#7 Springfield, Illinois

Springfield, Illinois followed the national trend with a slight increase in the number of reported violent crimes from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. The total violent crime was up just 1.3 percent. Changes in the robbery and aggravated assault rates were almost negligible, and while the murder rate shows a 100 percent increase, that is a result of two additional murders in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in 2014. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +1.3%
(2014: 551; 2015: 558)
Murder: +100%
(2014: 2; 2015: 4)
Rape: +11.9%
(2014: 42; 2015: 47)
Robbery: -0.9%
(2014: 111; 2015: 110)
Aggravated Assault: +0.3%
(2014: 396; 2015: 397)

#8 New Haven, Connecticut

New Haven, Connecticut is the #8 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population between 100,000 and 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#9 Chattanooga, Tennessee

Chattanooga, Tennessee had a modest drop in the number of violent crimes in the first half of 2015, going down 7.4 percent relative to the same period in 2014. Particularly notable were the 27.5 percent drop in robbery, and a 30 percent decrease in reported rapes. Aggravated assault, however, had a small increase of 1.8 percent. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -7.4%
(2014: 883; 2015: 818)
Murder: -47.1%
(2014: 17; 2015: 9)
Rape: -30%
(2014: 60; 2015: 42)
Robbery: -27.5%
(2014: 182; 2015: 132)
Aggravated Assault: +1.8%
(2014: 624; 2015: 635)

#10 Worcester, Massachusetts

Worcester, Massachusetts saw a slight decrease in violent crime of 5.4 percent in the first half of 2015. While aggravated assault was down by 8.8 percent, robbery was up by 8 percent. The number of reported rapes fell by 42.9 percent, however, given the relatively low number offenses, a drop from seven rapes to four yields a high percentage change. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -5.4%
(2014: 814; 2015: 770)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 4; 2015: 4)
Rape: -42.9%
(2014: 7; 2015: 4)
Robbery: +8.0%
(2014: 175; 2015: 189)
Aggravated Assault: -8.8%
(2014: 628; 2015: 573)

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

FBI: Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dangerous Cities Under 200,000: Mixed Bag of Results for Early 2015 Crime appeared first on Law Street.

Nationally, violent crime increased by approximately 1.7 percent from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in 2014. Four of the safest cities followed the national trend with crime increases and one city did not have preliminary statistics available through the FBI. The 25.2 percent increase in violent crime in Fremont, California was the largest among the top 10 safest cities, as the city saw 29 additional violent crimes in the first half of last year. On the other hand, Plano, Texas experienced the largest decrease among the top 10 safest cities, as violent crime fell by 20.3 percent.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Safest Cities with populations greater than 200,000 people appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS Over 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 Most Dangerous Cities with Populations Under 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Irvine, California

Irvine California, the safest city with a population greater than 200,000, followed the national trend with a slight increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. Although Irvine had an increase of 3.7 percent, the increase in raw numbers appears much smaller–the city only had two more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +3.7%
(2014: 54; 2015: 56)
Murder: +100%
(2014: 0; 2015: 1)
Rape: N/A
(2014 legacy definition: 9; 2015 revised definition: 11*)
Robbery: +17.6%
(2014: 17; 2015: 20)
Aggravated Assault: -14.3%
(2014: 28; 2015: 24)

*At some point during this year, the Irvine, California police department moved from the legacy definition of rape to the FBI’s revised definition. As a result, Irvine’s 2014 rape statistics are not comparable to its 2015 statistics. The FBI changed the definition of rape in 2013 to be more accurate and inclusive. For more information click here.

#2 Gilbert, Arizona

Gilbert, Arizona experienced a notable decrease in its violent crime statistics from January to June 2015. Violent crime in the city fell by 18.6 percent, which was the second largest decrease among all of the top 10 safest cities. The largest decrease occurred in the number of reported robberies, which fell by more than 50 percent. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -18.6%
(2014: 113; 2015: 92)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 0; 2015: 0)
Rape: +44.4%
(2014: 9; 2015: 13)
Robbery: -54.8%
(2014: 31; 2015: 14)
Aggravated Assault: -11%
(2014: 73; 2015: 65)

#3 Fremont, California

Fremont, California experienced a 25 percent increase in violent crime from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. In total, the city reported 29 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the first half of 2014. The largest increase occurred in Fremont’s robbery statistics, which went up by over 37 percent, from 51 in 2014 to 70 last year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +25.2%
(2014: 115; 2015: 144)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 1; 2015: 1)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 7; 2015 revised definition: 19)
Robbery: +37.3%
(2014: 51; 2015: 70)
Aggravated Assault: -3.6%
(2014: 56; 2015: 54)

*Fremont, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#4 Virginia Beach, Virginia

Virginia Beach went against the national trend with a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of last year. In total, the city reported 22 fewer violent crimes last year than it did in 2014, a drop of 6.7 percent. The biggest change occurred in the number of reported rapes, which fell by 34.5 percent. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -6.7%
(2014: 327; 2015: 305)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 12; 2015: 12)
Rape: -34.5%
(2014: 55; 2015: 36)
Robbery: +4.1%
(2014: 123; 2015: 128)
Aggravated Assault: -5.8%
(2014: 137; 2015: 129)

#5 Santa Clarita, California

Santa Clarita, California is the #5 Safest City in the country with a population greater than 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Santa Clarita data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#6 Henderson, Nevada

Henderson, Nevada experienced a modest increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015. In total, Henderson reported 31 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the first half of 2014, an increase of 15.7 percent. Much of that increase was the result of higher numbers of reported rapes and robberies, which increased by 54.5 percent and 20.3 percent, respectively. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +15.7%
(2014: 198; 2015: 229)
Murder: +0%
(2014: 1; 2015: 1)
Rape: +54.5%
(2014: 33; 2015: 51)
Robbery: +20.3%
(2014: 69; 2015: 83)
Aggravated Assault: -1.1%
(2014: 95; 2015: 94)

#7 Plano, Texas

Plano, Texas experienced a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of 2015, going down 10.4 percent relative to the first half of the previous year. The largest decrease came in the number of robberies, which fell by more than 20 percent. Plano’s violent crime decreased in every category with the exception of murder which had a slight increase. Although the percentage of murders increased significantly, that change was the result of one additional murder relative to the previous year. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -10.4%
(2014: 249; 2015: 223)
Murder: +50%
(2014: 2; 2015: 3)
Rape: -2.1%
(2014: 47; 2015: 46)
Robbery: -21%
(2014: 81; 2015: 64)
Aggravated Assault: -7.6%
(2014: 119; 2015: 110)

#8 Chandler, Arizona

Chandler, Arizona also went against the national trend in the first half of 2015 with a decrease in violent crime of nearly 10 percent. In total, Chandler had 22 fewer crimes from January to June 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. Much of that decrease is the result of a 12.8 percent drop in the number of aggravated assaults. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -9.6%
(2014: 228; 2015: 206)
Murder: Went from 1 to 0
(2014: 1; 2015: 0)
Rape: +8.3%
(2014: 24; 2015: 26)
Robbery: -7.3%
(2014: 55; 2015: 51)
Aggravated Assault: -12.8%
(2014: 148; 2015: 129)

#9 Irving, Texas

Irving, Texas reported the largest decrease in violent crime in the first half of 2015, as the number of crimes dropped by 20.3 percent. That decrease is a result of a significant drop in the number of aggravated assaults, which went from 169 in the first half of 2014 to 112 in 2015, a drop of 33.7 percent. Although the percentage of murders reported in Irving increased greatly, that was the result of four additional murders in 2015. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -20.3%
(2014: 271; 2015: 216)
Murder: +200%
(2014: 2; 2015: 6)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 19; 2015 revised definition: 15)
Robbery: +2.5%
(2014: 81; 2015: 83)
Aggravated Assault: -33.7%
(2014: 169; 2015: 112)

*Irving, Texas began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#10 Chula Vista, California

Chula Vista, California experienced an 8.9 percent increase in violent crime from January to June 2015 relative to the same period in the previous year. This increase is largely a result of a higher number of robberies, going up 13.1 percent relative to the previous year. The overall increase may also be a result of the Chula Vista police department’s change in its definition of rape. In 2015, the city began submitting rape statistics according to the FBI’s revised definition, which was changed in 2013 to be more inclusive and accurate. The data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +8.9%
(2014: 292; 2015: 318)
Murder: +33.3%
(2014: 3; 2015: 2)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 20; 2015 revised definition: 30)
Robbery: +13.1%
(2014: 107; 2015: 121)
Aggravated Assault: +1.9%
(2014: 162; 2015: 165)

*Chula Vista, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

FBI: Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safest Cities: Five of Top 10 See Crime Decrease in First Half of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the process used to confer death sentences in the State of Florida violates the Sixth Amendment on Tuesday. The ruling focuses on the state’s use of a judge, rather than a jury, to make the final determination of a death sentence and does not weigh in on the constitutionality of death sentences in general.

“The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough,” wrote Justice Sotomayor in her majority opinion. The case, Hurst v. Florida, involves Timothy Lee Hurst’s conviction for the murder of his co-worker Cynthia Harrison in 1998. The state of Florida has a unique sentencing procedure for death penalty cases, which Sotomayor argues is in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

In Florida, the maximum sentence for someone convicted of just a capital felony is life in prison. But, a death sentence may be given to a capital felon only after an additional sentencing proceeding. This process, which the Supreme Court refers to as “hybrid” sentencing, puts the final decision in the hands of the judge after a jury gives an “advisory verdict.” Although the jury provides the verdict, it does not give the factual basis for its sentencing recommendation, instead, the judge is tasked with providing the legal justification for a death sentence. Justice Sotomayor argues that under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” the Florida system is unconstitutional.

Much of the reasoning in the Hurst v. Florida case comes from the court’s ruling in Ring v. Arizona back in 2002. The previous Arizona sentencing system is very similar to the structure that the court stuck down in Florida, making Sotomayor’s opinion a pretty straightforward interpretation of court precedent. The Arizona sentencing process ultimately put the burden on a judge to determine whether the presence of aggravating factors justify the death penalty. The court ruled that doing so violated the Sixth Amendment and largely applied the same justification to the ruling in Hurst v. Florida.

So what does this mean going forward? In light of the ruling, two primary questions remain. First, what does this mean for all of the inmates currently on death row? And second, what changes will the state need to make to issue death sentences in the future? As Think Progress points out, the Ring V. Arizona decision did not retroactively affect prisoners who received death sentences prior to the Ring ruling. In a subsequent decision, Schriro v. Summerlin, the Supreme Court ruled that the precedent set by Ring does not apply retroactively to other Arizona inmates because it amounted to a procedural change in the law, not a substantive one. Based on that precedent, the court’s recent ruling in Hurst will likely not affect previous cases.

However, there is some evidence to suggest that the ruling may, in fact, be retroactive. As NPR notes, retroactivity is also a matter of state law and the Florida Supreme Court uses a more generous application of retroactivity than most states. It is important to note that Florida has the second highest number of inmates currently on death row, making the question of retroactivity particularly important for the state.

In the wake of the ruling, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi issued the following statement:

In light of today’s United States Supreme Court decision holding Florida’s capital sentencing procedure unconstitutional, the state will need to make changes to its death-sentencing statutes. I will work with state lawmakers this legislative session to ensure that those changes comply with the Court’s latest decision. The impact of the Court’s ruling on existing death sentences will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Based on Bondi’s statement, there is some possibility that the ruling could apply retroactively, but it seems clear that Florida will need to amend or pass a new law in order to issue future death sentences.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Deems Florida Death Penalty Sentencing Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Rand Paul started to bid farewell to 2015 with a special edition of his “Waste Report,” a regular roundup of government spending that he considers wasteful. Paul releases these reports as part of his unending effort to cut the federal deficit, but this edition commemorated the, objectively speaking, most underrated holiday in the United States: Festivus.

If you don’t know what Festivus is you should, aside from being ashamed of yourself, watch this YouTube clip for some background. Festivus is a fictional holiday created by the TV show “Seinfeld” and its celebration involves multiple different parts. The most notable part is the “airing of the grievances,” in which people share the problems they have with, well, everyone and everything.

Paul seized on Festivus, which is celebrated each year on December 23, to share some of his own grievances with his fellow candidates and the government in general–and he did so with an epic Twitter rant. Here’s a sampling of the best Tweets:

“I’ve got a lot of problems with you people and now you’re gonna hear about them!” #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

He, of course, started off with the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump referencing his extremely questionable use of the term “schlonged.”

Where to start but @realDonaldTrump. If u bring the Yiddish, know what it means. Guess that’s more of a kvetch than a grievance #Festivus — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

After the debates, @realDonaldTrump always trying to give us parting gifts of his made in China ties. Weird. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

Next he moves on to his fellow Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. For context, Cruz was born in Canada.

My friend @tedcruz has still not pledged to issue exec order declaring Canadian “bacon” is not real bacon. Makes me suspicious. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

He offered some critiques of his GOP competition:

to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn’t put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

.@JebBush is always trying to change the debate rules to allow extra time for awkward pauses in answers. Not gonna happen. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

And he was sure to make it a bipartisan affair, taking shots at his competition on the other side of the aisle.

.@CarlyFiorina has ZERO trouble making it back from commercial breaks @HillaryClinton. Just saying. #Festivus #waronwomensrooms

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

to my comrade @SenSanders: Unless you’re Santa Claus, Socialism runs out of other people’s money #Festivus — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

When he finished with his competition he, naturally, took a brief pause to ask for money.

While you wait for more grievances this #Festivus considering standing with me and helping our campaign right now https://t.co/78WPMctrVp — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

Finally, he went through some of the highlights from his Waste Report. He highlighted public housing projects, which he claims give housing subsidies to people who don’t need it. Because people only need to qualify as low-income when entering housing programs, they can continue to receive subsidies after they no longer meet that criteria. He also criticized the use of federal funds for a study on why “Americans don’t want to use the metric system.”

Not everything in Paul’s report would be universally categorized as waste, like a study that sought to understand the role of emotions in decision-making, but you have to give him credit for cataloging a long list of spending that he deems questionable, not to mention the glorious way in which he chose to expose them.

While it’s fair to say the use of Festivus and ad-hominem attacks on his competition are an effective way to get media attention (I admittedly fell for the trap), Paul stayed true to his fiscal conservatism and had fun while doing it. I generally criticize campaigns’ often gimmicky use of social media, but this time, I have to give Rand Paul some credit.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rand Paul Wins Twitter with Festivus Rant appeared first on Law Street.

We often talk about crime statistics in terms of the safest and most dangerous cities, but many of the most popular cities in the United States rarely make those lists. In fact, many of the top travel destinations may actually have lower crime rates than you would think. We looked at the top 10 U.S. cities on Trip Advisor’s list of Travelers’ Choice Destinations to determine the most popular cities for visitors, and then broke down their actual crime rates.

A notable example of is Chicago, a city that many people think has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. In raw numbers, Chicago does have a lot of violent crime–over 24,000 violent crimes in 2014–but given its large population, its rate does not place it among the top 10 highest. To break the top 10, Chicago would need almost 1.5 times as many violent crimes, given its current population of over 2.7 million people.

This is true for many of the most popular American cities, particularly those with very large populations. For each city on Trip Advisor’s ranking, we list its violent crime statistics, which include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. We also indicate each city’s rank in terms of violent crime rate among the 111 U.S. cities that have a population greater than 200,000 people and available data from the FBI.

All data is based on the FBI’s most recent Crime in the United States publication, which includes statistics from the 2014 calendar year. It is important to note that this is not a ranking of cities’ crime statistics, rather a look at how crime rates vary across popular American cities. A wide range of factors contributes to a city’s violent crime rate, particularly among cities of different sizes and demographics.

Check out the slideshow below to see how violent crime statistics varies among top travel destinations in the country.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Click here to see the Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

Click here to see all of Law Street Media’s Crime in America Coverage

New York, New York

Image courtesy of Peter McConnochle via Flickr

Violent Crime Rate: 597 per 100,000 people
Overall Rank: #53
Population: 8,473,938
Total Violent Crime: 50,564
Murder: 333
Rape: 2,190*
Robbery: 16,518
Aggravated Assault: 31,460

The overall rank is relative to the 286 U.S. cities with populations over 200,000 people and available FBI data.

*New York began the year submitting rape data classified according to the legacy UCR definition. However, at some point during the calendar year, the agency modified its reporting methods and began classifying and submitting rape offenses according to the revised UCR definition of rape. For more details click here.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime Rates in the Most Popular U.S. Travel Destinations appeared first on Law Street.

A development that has so far been described using anecdotal evidence now has some data to back it up: in the wake of the Paris attacks, hate crimes against Muslims and mosques may be increasing. An analysis from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism found that the number of hate crimes since the Paris attacks is nearly three times greater than the monthly average in the past five years. While this finding is striking, it is important to acknowledge how incomplete hate crime data is in the United States.

According to the analysis–which used the FBI’s criteria and definitions from American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code to identify hate crime incidents in news reports–the study found 37 suspected hate crimes between November 13 and December 13. Brian Levin, the director of Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, notes that these findings represent a significant increase based on available data. According to FBI statistics, the United States averaged 12.6 hate crimes with an anti-Islamic bias each month over the previous five years. There were 11 anti-Islamic hate crimes in the week after the San Bernadino shootings alone.

It is important to note that the FBI data on hate crime is, put simply, incomplete. The statistics published each year by the FBI are almost certainly an undercount of the total number of hate crimes. The data, which includes incidents and offenses known to law enforcement, are voluntarily submitted by local law enforcement agencies. While 15,494 agencies participated in Hate Crime Statistics Program last year, only 1,666 agencies reported crimes.

To get a sense of how much information might be missing from the data, let’s look at the numbers. Florida, the third most populous state in the country with nearly 20 million residents, reported 72 hate crimes in 2014. By contrast, the District of Columbia has fewer than 660,000 residents but reported 87 hate crimes over the same period. The FBI even publishes an additional table with all of the agencies that reported zero hate crimes.

Survey data on hate crimes further highlights the gaps in the FBI’s statistics. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of American households, there were about 293,800 hate crimes in 2012, while the FBI data shows fewer than 6,000.*

It is important to note that both data sets are trying to measure different things–the survey tracks self-identified victimization while the FBI data includes incidents known to law enforcement–but the massive gap illustrates that the FBI data is most likely missing something. Even when you account for the fact that approximately 60 percent of survey respondents did not report their victimization to the police, the numbers remain far apart.

So does this mean we should dismiss the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism’s analysis? Researchers claim that there was a significant increase in anti-Islamic hate crimes after the Paris attacks, but they are comparing news reports to FBI data, which is most likely incomplete. The lack of accurate data on hate crimes makes it difficult to draw sweeping conclusions, but there is additional evidence to suggest that Islamaphobia is on the rise in America. Another review of anti-Islamic crimes found that crimes targeting mosques increased after the Paris attacks as well. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations–which tracks damage, harassment, intimidation, and zoning incidents related to mosques–2015 experienced a significant increase in incidents, especially in recent months. There have also been widespread reports of mosques increasing security because of the perceived threat against Muslims. Even if there has not been a dramatic growth in hate crimes, the perception among Muslims in the United States and around the world is, by itself, a notable consequence of these trends.

While researchers look at a possible increase in hate crimes, anti-Islamic rhetoric has been on the rise. Donald Trump has said we should temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country, supports a database to track Muslims, and said that the United States should consider shutting down mosques. Marco Rubio went further to say that the government should not only shut down mosques but any place where radicalization happens. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have argued that preference should be given to Christian refugees fleeing prosecution, indicating that they pose less of a threat than Muslims fleeing the same thing. Ben Carson even used an analogy to compare Syrian refugees to a rabid dog.

We may not know the extent to which growing fear of terrorism has caused hate crimes, but as public resentment towards Muslim Americans grows the evidence, while anecdotal, seems difficult to dismiss.

*The FBI added an addendum to its 2012 report to include additional submissions from Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas, but even when the additional data is accounted for the total doesn’t increase much. [back]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As Anti-Islamic Rhetoric Grows, Hate Crime Against Muslims May be Rising appeared first on Law Street.

In Tuesday night’s Republican debate, the candidates focused most of their attention on foreign policy, specifically what needs to be done to protect the American people. While the candidates ended up agreeing on many ideas, the clearest sense of unity on the stage was behind the notion that the United States needs to be tougher. We need to have a tougher immigration policy, we need to move away from the “feckless weakling president” in the oval office, and most importantly we need to be “tough” on ISIS.

Senator Ted Cruz started off by upping the standards for toughness. When asked about his previous call to “carpet bomb” ISIS, Cruz doubled down. He referenced the first Persian Gulf War, noting that the United States conducted around 1,100 airstrikes a day. But when Wolf Blitzer, the debate’s moderator, pressed Cruz on how that would affect civilians, he gave a rather bizarre response:

You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed — and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

Now on its face, that might sound like a sensible policy; few people would argue against a decisive bombing campaign that only killed terrorists. But that’s simply not the reality on the ground. There isn’t a huge group of ISIS soldiers standing around in the middle of the desert. They are deeply embedded in civilian populations, primarily in cities where indiscriminate bombing campaigns would kill massive amounts of civilians.

Cruz faced questions like that before, yet he has maintained his view that his policy wouldn’t kill civilians. In a recent interview with NPR, Cruz even noted that “no reasonable military endeavor targets civilians.” But looking at the reality in Iraq and Syria, what Cruz is calling for would have a massive civilian casualty toll. There are only a few conclusions available here–Cruz is either fine with more civilian deaths than he is letting on, doesn’t actually realize how ISIS is operating, or is intentionally misleading people–all three seem troubling.

Not to mention that carpet bombing, a term Cruz has repeatedly used when talking about ISIS, hasn’t been used since the Vietnam war. As Politifact points out, the main tenet of carpet bombing is that it is indiscriminate and not targeted. Even in the Gulf War, which Cruz regularly cites as an example, the military used targeted bombs. Moreover, the practice of carpet bombing may also violate the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention. What is true about carpet bombing? It sounds tough.

To be sure, the current U.S.-led bombing campaign has caused a large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria despite taking some precautions. While that is, by itself, worthy of debate, the debate on Tuesday night changed the way foreign policy is discussed in the Republican campaign. It seems as if the proposed policies are no longer about helping solve an already impossibly complicated situation, rather they are simply a way to display America’s, and by extension the candidate’s, toughness.

So what exactly does this toughness entail? Toughness, while often vague and said without further explanation, means being willing to act regardless of the consequences. That concept was even baked into the questions given to the candidates. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt questioned whether being a kind, evangelical neurosurgeon would prevent Ben Carson from doing what ‘needs to be done.’ Hewitt asked,

We’re talking about ruthless things tonight — carpet bombing, toughness, war… Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

In response, Carson reflected on the tough decisions he had to make as a surgeon, noting the firmness with which he dealt with his patients. “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks,” he said. But what he was saying did become clear until his next exchange with Hewitt:

Hewitt: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? [The crowd boos]

Carson: You got it.

Carson was not alone in his disregard for civilian casualties. The sentiment was largely popularized by the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who recently said that the United States should go after terrorists’ families. My colleague Anneliese Mahoney has already noted that Trump is, quite plainly, advocating for war crimes, but he pressed on in Tuesday night’s debate. He said, “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” Trump later asked, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?” He was seemingly arguing that the U.S. response should play at the same level as the Islamic State.

By the end of the night, only Rand Paul managed to create a compelling contrast to his competitors:

If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you’re going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

Paul’s questions, and the extent to which we are okay killing civilians, are worth further consideration from the candidates and voters alike.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate: Candidates Fight Over Who is the Toughest appeared first on Law Street.

How far can government agencies go when trying to implement new regulations? According to a review from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the EPA broke the law in its push to gain public support for its new water regulation rule, using what the GAO calls “covert propaganda.” As social media becomes an increasingly important platform for government agencies to share information with the public, it’s also becoming clear that a line exists in terms of how far their outreach can go.

The EPA rule that prompted the campaign sought to better define and expand the agency’s authority to regulate the “navigable waters” of the United States under the Clean Water Act. A series of Supreme Court decisions made it particularly difficult to determine the waters under EPA authority, so the agency proposed a new rule to create clarity while also expanding its jurisdiction. The rule immediately became controversial. In fact, Republicans and a range of business interests, from farmers to the oil industry, came out against the rule before it took effect. Critics argued that the rule was a sweeping example of government overreach with the EPA seeking to expand its authority to regulate and dictate the use of land near water sources. The interest groups opposing the new legislation created a particularly powerful coalition, lobbying members of Congress and creating public relations campaigns to communicate their opposition.

In response to the strong opposition from the business lobby, the EPA went on its own social media campaign to spread information about the new rule during the public comment period. A New York Times article noticed the unconventional methods employed by the EPA, citing observers concerns that the agency was overstepping its bounds.

After a review of the EPA’s practices, the GAO report identified four social media campaigns initiated by the EPA, concluding that two of them violated anti-lobbying restrictions and laws that prohibit publicity or propaganda for agencies that receive Congressional appropriations. While government officials and the heads of certain agencies are allowed to explicitly advocate for certain policies, federal agencies themselves are not allowed to lobby the public.

The EPA’s position, which is reflected in the GAO report, maintains that the agency acted properly in its use of social media. In a statement given to the New York Times, an EPA Spokesperson said:

We use social media tools just like all organizations to stay connected and inform people across the country about our activities… At no point did the E.P.A. encourage the public to contact Congress or any state legislature.

The GAO took issue with the agency’s use of a platform called Thunderclap, which allows a message to be posted across supporters’ Facebook and Twitter accounts all at once. The problem identified by the GAO was that when the message was shared across social media, which may have reached as many as 1.8 million people, the EPA was not was not easily identifiable as the source. Because government information is supposed to be closely tied to its source, the use of Thunderclap constituted “covert propaganda.”

The EPA also used a #DitchtheMyth campaign on social media, which allowed people to share the agency’s campaign with their networks. The GAO argued that this was acceptable because the prescribed message referenced the EPA’s official Twitter accounts and the graphics used the EPA logo. The #CleanWaterRules campaign was also considered lawful by the GAO. This campaign did not violate the publicity restrictions placed on the agency because the GAO found that the communications did not qualify as self-aggrandizement, but rather were intended to promote discussion and associate the proposed rule with the agency.

Finally, the GAO found that an EPA’s blog post violated anti-lobbying restrictions because of how hyperlinks connected people with advocacy groups while knowing that members of Congress explicitly opposed the rule. A blog post by an EPA communications director illustrated some of the ways the rule would help people in everyday activities like surfing and drinking beer. The blog post linked to a National Resource Defense Council page, which talked about the effects of clean water on beer brewing, and a Surfrider Foundation article about how pollution affects surfers. Both websites also featured some sort of action section that encourages visitors to contact their legislators about the EPA rule. The GAO concludes:

EPA violated the anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts for FY 2015 when it obligated and expended funds in connection with establishing the hyperlinks to the webpages of environmental action groups

By hyperlinking to these advocacy organizations’ websites, the EPA associated itself with their message–including appeals to contact Congress about open legislation–which violate the anti-lobbying restrictions placed on the agency.

While these efforts don’t necessarily constitute flagrant abuse, they do seem to violate the restrictions placed on the EPA as the GAO review found. In its report, the GAO recommended that the agency determines how much it spent on unlawful practices and notify Congress and the President that the violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal employees and agencies from spending unauthorized or unappropriated funds.

This finding illustrates the particularly difficult position many government agencies can find themselves in while trying to establish new rules and regulations. The EPA is arguably one of the best examples, as a highly polarized Congress has made its efforts particularly controversial. As more and more regulation is created through executive action, efforts like the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rule have come under more and more criticism from opponents. Much of this ends up being manifested in lawsuits and political disagreement–the new water rule is currently facing challenges from 18 different states. But as the debate rages on, agencies are tasked with informing the public about of their policies and potential effects. Using social media to do so can be particularly effective, but as the GAO ruling shows, limitations certainly exist.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the EPA Illegally Lobby the American People? appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, 195 countries managed to reach an unprecedented climate change agreement that intends to unite the international community around the goal of reducing emissions and preventing the most severe consequences of global warming. But despite the agreement, much work remains to be done to meet previously established targets. So was this agreement a success and will it solve climate change?

The short answer to that questions is yes and no–the agreement was in some ways a success, but it won’t solve climate change by itself. Evaluating climate change progress is particularly difficult because there are multiple ways to measure success. Committing all countries to the goal of limiting climate change is a massive step forward that should not be understated, but if you ask climate scientists, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the world will be able to meet its intent to limit global temperatures to 2°C (3.6°F), above pre-industrial levels.

Let’s first look at what the agreement will require and where some gray areas remain. The legally-binding portion of the agreement mandates that all countries must submit plans to reduce their emissions, consistently monitor their progress, and then regularly report reductions to the international community. The agreement outlines a plan for regular international meetings at which additional measures will be discussed. While that step, by itself, is significant, the agreement has no binding mechanism to compel countries to meet their own standards. Moreover, based on the 185 plans that were submitted before the Paris conference, global warming will most likely continue past the agreed upon goal of 2°C.

If we proceed according to each country’s emissions plans, formally referred to as the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), temperatures will rise an estimated 3.5°C, but due to uncertainty in predictions, it could be as much as 4.6°C (Take a look at this graphic from the Climate Interactive for a visual representation). Because counties must track and update their emissions progress, countries could conceivably change their targets to become much more ambitious, making the 2°C goal attainable. But doing so would take a massive amount of political will and would need to happen sooner rather than later. The Climate Interactive refers to that as the “Ratchet Success” scenario. Check out this explanation to see what that would actually entail.

It is appropriate to question whether 2°C is a reasonable goal, as it was created somewhat arbitrarily. But the available evidence suggests that once the earth warms to that point significant changes will occur. Vox’s Brad Plumer has a pretty succinct breakdown:

Critics grumbled that the 2°C limit seemed arbitrary or overly simplistic. But scientists were soon compiling evidence that the risks of global warming became fairly daunting somewhere above the 2°C threshold: rapid sea-level rise, the risk of crop failure, the collapse of coral reefs. And policymakers loved the idea of a simple, easily digestible target. So it stuck.

While the 2°C threshold marks a certain point of no return for some climate-related consequences, scientists argue that significant effects will likely come before the earth warms that much. Generally, predicting the exact temperature at which changes will occur is difficult because rising temperatures could actually accelerate warming even further. Some manifestations of climate change, like permafrost melting, could actually speed up warming, which can be difficult for models to account for. Most models give a range for the potential consequences of warming, but even those may be revised upwards.

While it’s clear that in order to meet the U.N.’s target of 2°C much more needs to be done, that does not render the recent Paris agreement useless. The mere fact that nearly every major country has committed to reducing global warming is a significant achievement. This is particularly true when you look at the history of these talks and how they have failed in the past.

There have been several monumental steps that made the recent Paris deal possible in the first place. An agreement between the two largest CO2 emitters, the United States and China, bridged some of the disagreement between developed and developing countries. China recently announced a plan to let its emissions peak by 2030 and began working on a cap and trade system to do so. The Obama administration created a stringent Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce electricity sector emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030, as well as a 26 percent reduction in all emissions before 2025. Moreover, the fact that 185 countries managed to commit concrete plans to reduce their emissions is a remarkable a show of international commitment.

Despite recent progress, there are several key obstacles that remain in the way of a meaningful solution, arguably the most notable of which is the U.S. Congress. While negotiators were working in Paris to hash out a deal, the Republican-led Congress sought to dispel any optimism that might come from the deal. Earlier this month, the Republican party held a, notably symbolic, vote to block President Obama’s clean energy plan. Afer the Paris agreement was reached, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said,

Before his international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt, and that Congress has already voted to reject.

While the stark disagreement between Republicans and the rest of the world on climate change hasn’t stopped all U.S. attempts to reduce emissions, a comprehensive strategy will need support from Congress. President Obama has largely managed to pursue his clean energy agenda through executive action, but when he leaves office the next president could easily reverse his progress. Another key part of the Paris agreement is the goal to provide $100 billion in climate-related aid to developing countries, yet U.S. funding for that must be approved by Congress. It’s true that the most important parts of the Paris agreement are not legally binding–there is no way to punish a country that does not meet its emissions plan–but that is largely a result of political reality.

So yes, the Paris agreement was a success in the sense that it marks a historic commitment to fight global climate change. The United Nations received climate reductions plans from 185 countries, which will continue to be revised and monitored in an effort to mitigate the negative effects of global warming. But at the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that we will not meet our established goal to limit warming to 2°C. More to the point, there are several significant barriers to enacting the legislation needed to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy. Perhaps the Paris agreement is accurately a starting point, and if the international community is able to build momentum going forward, pressure could help force necessary change.

Read more: The Paris Climate Change Conference: What Should We Expect?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was the Paris Climate Agreement a Success? appeared first on Law Street.

As racial tensions become more visible in the United States, particularly at American universities, the Supreme Court finds itself hearing oral arguments on a major affirmative action case. While legal underpinning for affirmative action has been weakening in recent court decisions, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to end the practice altogether.

The lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, was brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas’ flagship school at Austin. Fisher alleges that while she was not accepted other, less-qualified students were admitted to the school because of their race. UT-Austin has a relatively unique admissions process because the school automatically accepts all students from Texas in the top 10 percent of their high school class. In practice, the actual percentage has been slightly lower since a law modified the rule in 2009, which said that UT-Austin must be able to fill 75 percent of the available residences with students from the top of their high school class. Importantly, though, Fisher was not granted automatic admission and was then forced to be considered using the university’s holistic evaluation process, in which race is considered alongside a wide range of factors.

Interestingly, the university’s 10 percent policy has actually helped increase diversity at UT-Austin. The policy leverages the fact that Texas high schools are often racially homogenous in order to promote diversity. Because many of the state’s high schools are primarily black or primarily white, the top 10 percent admissions policy ends up increasing the number of minority students accepted to the school.

What’s particularly interesting about this case is that there is little evidence to suggest Fisher would have been accepted even if race wasn’t a factor. Instead, the case is more accurately a challenge to the use of race in admissions itself and not a challenge of the school’s particular decision in Fisher’s case. Pro Publica’s candid analysis of the case states the subject of the case pretty clearly: it’s about the conservative view that the Constitution is colorblind and no one should be treated differently based on their race. On the other hand, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to combat the legacy of racism and inequality in the United States, and by many measures those resulting racial disparities still exist today.

That underlying debate is at the heart of the discussion around the case, and it becomes particularly clear you look at the facts. When Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008, the 10 percent rule accounted for about 92 percent of all incoming students from Texas. Although she had good grades Fisher did not meet that qualification. Instead, she was evaluated using the university’s holistic review process  using both an academic index (AI), which is based on test scores and grades, and a personal achievement index (PAI), which is based on two essays, the applicant’s life experiences, and, importantly, “special circumstances” that can range from economic background to race.

Based on the applicant pool, available evidence suggests that her rejection was not a result of her race. This fact is put clearly in the case’s court documents, in which UT-Austin notes,

Because petitioner [Fisher] was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, her application was considered pursuant to the holistic review process described above… The summary judgment record is uncontradicted that—due to the stiff competition in 2008 and petitioner’s relatively low AI score—petitioner would not have been admitted to the Fall 2008 freshman class even if she had received ‘a “perfect” PAI score of 6.’

Put simply, regardless of Fisher’s score on the personal achievement index, her grades and test scores were too low to grant her admission–meaning that race had nothing to do with the school’s decision as the PAI wasn’t a factor. Fisher was also denied admission to the school’s summer program, but the evidence suggests that the same thing happened. For the summer program, there were better qualified black and white students who did not earn acceptance.

Rather than seeking to correct Fisher’s admissions decision, this case is, transparently, about eliminating affirmative action from the college admissions process. The group funding the lawsuit, the Project on Fair Representation, seeks to “support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.” This ranges from ending affirmative action in admissions and employment to eliminating voting protections for minorities. And so far, the group has had some notable success achieving that goal. In fact, it was the force behind the Shelby County court case that invalidated a major part of the civil rights act a couple years ago.

In the last landmark ruling on affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that allowed schools to use race as a factor for admissions in order to achieve diversity but gave a sort of expiration date on the practice. According to the decision, affirmative action could be used if it was narrowly tailored to promote greater diversity among the student body. In the opinion, she said, “the court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 2003, but 12 years later a renewed push to end affirmative action may move that deadline up considerably.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether affirmative action remains acceptable or if it should be further restricted and possibly eliminated altogether. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the Justice Department filed a brief on it during her time as Solicitor General. There is a possibility that the Justices split the decision 4-4, in which case the lower court’s ruling in support of the admissions program will hold.

It’s pretty clear that the Justices are not eager to hand down a landmark decision on affirmative action. In fact, they have already heard this case once before but remanded it back to the lower court to evaluate UT-Austin’s use of affirmative action with stricter scrutiny. In oral arguments earlier this week, some of the Justices wanted to stall even further, questioning whether sending it back for a trial could be beneficial. Now that race is at the forefront of political discussion, the court is in a particularly tricky position. The fate of affirmative action programs now hangs in the balance.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Makes its Way Back to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

While crime in the United States continued its downward trend last year, some metropolitan areas experienced relatively high rates of violent crime when compared to the rest of the country. According to the most recent crime data from the FBI, which covers the 2014 calendar year, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area had the highest violent crime rate in both the south and the entire United States for the second year in a row. The Memphis metro area had approximately 1034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Of the 15 metro areas with the highest crime rates, nine are located in the Southern region of the United States while none of the top 15 are located in the Northeast.

Check out the slideshow below to see the rankings of the Top 15 Most Dangerous metro areas across the United States. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Ranking metropolitan areas provides additional insight about crime in the United States because the statistics account for crime in a principal city as well as surrounding suburbs, which tend to be both socially and economically integrated.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

#1 Memphis, TN-MS-AR      

Image courtesy of James Blucher via Flickr

Overall Rank: #1
Rank in South: #1
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 1034
– Murder: 13
– Rape: 51
– Robbery: 270 
– Aggravated Assault: 699
Population: 1,348,092

The Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area includes Crittenden County, AR; Benton, DeSoto, Marshall, Tate, and Tunica Counties, MS; and Fayette, Shelby, and Tipton Counties, TN as well as the city of Memphis, TN.

More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2016: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metro Areas appeared first on Law Street.

Crime across the United States has generally trended down over the years despite what you may gather every time you turn on the evening news. Not sure how your home compares? Check out the interactive crime map below, which details the latest violent crime statistics from the FBI by metro area. The darker the red, the higher the violent crime rate. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people.

Zoom in by double-clicking on the map and click the home button on the top left to reset the view. Searching for a specific location will automatically zoom-in to that metro area. Click here to read more information about Metropolitan Statistical Areas and these rankings.

READ MORE: 2015 CRIME RANKINGS FOR THE NORTHEAST, THE MIDWEST, THE WEST, AND THE SOUTH

READ MORE: SLIDESHOW: TOP 15 MOST DANGEROUS METRO AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES

If you are on mobile, view in landscape mode for best results. If you are having trouble viewing the map click here.

—

More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2016: Interactive Crime Map of U.S. Metro Areas appeared first on Law Street.

The Springfield, IL metro area sits atop the list of the most dangerous metro areas in the Midwest for the second year in a row. According to the latest FBI crime statistics, which cover the 2014 calendar year, Springfield, IL had a violent crime rate of 767 per 100,000 people, the fourth highest in the country. The Wausau, WI metro area was the safest metro in the Midwest for a second straight year. In total, Wisconsin had five of the top 10 safest metro areas in the Midwest. In 2014, the Midwest region of the United States held about 21 percent of the country’s population, but just 19 percent of its violent crime.

The rankings below detail the violent crime rate for cities and their surrounding metropolitan area across the Midwest. Check out the rankings below to see the Top 10 Safest and Top 10 Most Dangerous metro areas across the South. All rates below are calculated per 100,000 people. Click here to read more information about Metropolitan Statistical Areas and these rankings.

Read More: Crime Rankings for the Northeast, South, and West

Read More: Slideshow: Top 15 Most Dangerous Metros in the United States

Read More: Interactive Crime Map of the United States

Top 10 Most Dangerous Metros in the Midwest

#1 Springfield, IL Metro Area

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #4
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 767
 – Murder: 9
 – Rape: 71
 – Robbery: 138
 – Aggravated Assault: 549
 Population: 211,855

The Springfield, IL metro area includes Menard and Sangamon Counties as well as the city of Springfield.

#2 Rockford, IL

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #19
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 665
 – Murder: 7
 – Rape: 57
 – Robbery: 144
 – Aggravated Assault: 458
 Population: 343,135

The Rockford, IL metro area includes Boone and Winnebago Counties as well as the city of Rockford.

 #3 Saginaw, MI

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #21
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 660
 – Murder: 8
 – Rape: 82
 – Robbery: 84
 – Aggravated Assault: 486
 Population: 195,891

The Saginaw, MI metro area includes the Saginaw County and the city of Saginaw.

#4 Flint, MI

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #22
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 652
 – Murder: 8
 – Rape: 70
 – Robbery: 117
 – Aggravated Assault: 458
 Population: 413,337

The Flint, MI metro area includes Geneseee county and the city of Flint.

 #5 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #24
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 646
– Murder: 8
– Rape: 39
– Robbery: 209
– Aggravated Assault: 390
Population: 1,971,378

The Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN metro area includes Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, Putnam, and Shelby Counties as well as the city of Indianapolis3, the city of Carmel, and the city of Anderson.

 #6 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #25
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 634
 – Murder: 6
 – Rape: 33
 – Robbery: 251
 – Aggravated Assault: 343
 Population: 1,573,272

The Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI metro area includes Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha Counties as well as, the city of Milwaukee, the city of Waukesha, and the city of West Allis.

 #7 Danville, IL

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #30
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 592
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 91
– Robbery: 108
– Aggravated Assault: 392
Population: 79,939

The Danville, IL metro area includes Vermillion County and the city of Danville.

 #8 Toledo, OH

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #41
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 559
 – Murder: 5
 – Rape: 50
 – Robbery: 171
 – Aggravated Assault: 334
 Population: 608,517

The Toledo, OH metro area includes Fulton, Lucas, and Wood Counties as well as the city of Toledo.

 #9 Battle Creek, MI

Click to enlarge.

Overall Rank: #44
Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 538
– Murder: 3
– Rape: 90
– Robbery: 65
– Aggravated Assault: 380
Population: 134,882

The Battle Creek, MI metro area includes Calhoun County and the city of Battle Creek.

 #10 Springfield, MO

Click to enlarge.

 Overall Rank: #45
 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 536
 – Murder: 5
 – Rape: 74
 – Robbery: 94
 – Aggravated Assault: 364
 Population: 452,154

The Springfield, MO metro area includes Christian, Dallas, Greene, Polk, and Webster Counties and the city of Springfield.

Top 10 Safest Metros in the Midwest

#1 Wausau, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 90
 – Murder: 2
 – Rape: 13
 – Robbery: 9
 – Aggravated Assault: 66
 Population: 135,783

The Wausau, WI metro area includes Marathon County and the city of Wausau.

 #2 Columbus, IN

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 110
– Murder: 0
– Rape: 17
– Robbery: 30
– Aggravated Assault: 62
Population: 80,345

The Columbus, IN metro area includes Bartholomew County and the city of Columbus.

 #3 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 113
 – Murder: 0
 – Rape: 23
 – Robbery: 25
 – Aggravated Assault: 65
 Population: 135,985

The La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN metro area includes Houston County, MN and La Crosse County, WI as well as the city of La Crosse, WI and the city of Onalaska, WI.

 #4 Midland, MI

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 124
– Murder: 1
– Rape: 42
– Robbery: 11
– Aggravated Assault: 70
Population: 84,059

The Midland, MI metro area includes the Midland County and the city of Midland.

 #5 Eau Claire, WI

Click to enlarge

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 131
 – Murder: 0.6
 – Rape: 27
 – Robbery: 12
 – Aggravated Assault: 92
 Population: 165,411

The Eau Claire, WI metro area includes Chippewa and Eau Claire Counties as well as the city of Eau Claire.

#6 Ames, IA

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 132
 – Murder: 0
 – Rape: 41
 – Robbery: 17
 – Aggravated Assault: 74
 Population: 93,130

The Ames, IA metro area includes Story County and the city of Ames.

 #7 Appleton, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime:  137
 – Murder: 0
 – Rape: 16
 – Robbery: 11
 – Aggravated Assault: 110
 Population: 231,052

The Appleton, WI metro area includes Calumet and Outagamie Counties as well as the city of Appleton.

#8 Rochester, MN

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 141
 – Murder: 1
 – Rape: 29
 – Robbery: 26
 – Aggravated Assault: 85
 Population: 213,400

The Rochester, MN metro area includes Dodge, Fillmore, Olmsted, and Wabasha Counties and the city of Rochester.

#9 Sheboygan, WI

Click to enlarge.

 Rates/100,000 people:
 – Violent Crime: 163
 – Murder: 0.9
 – Rape: 24
 – Robbery: 18
 – Aggravated Assault: 119
 Population: 114,823

The Sheboygan, WI metro area includes Sheboygan County and the city of Sheboygan.

#10 Michigan City-La Porte, IN

Click to enlarge.

Rates/100,000 people:
– Violent Crime: 166
– Murder: 5.4
– Rape: 8
– Robbery: 73
– Aggravated Assault: 80
Population: 111,335

The Michigan City- La Porte, IN metro area includes La Porte County as well as Michigan City and the city of La Porte.

—
More info on metro areas:

The Office of Management and Budget began delineating Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the 1950s in order to provide an established level of analysis for government reports and statistics. MSAs are characterized as having an urban core with more than 50,000 people and surrounding areas that have close social and economic integration. The FBI does not provide data on all of the 388 MSAs defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Click here to see the FBI’s explanation for why all MSAs are not included. MSAs are organized by counties or their equivalent. All statistics in Law Street’s Crime in America metro rankings are presented as rates per 100,000 people, and they are taken from the FBI’s annual Crime in the United States publication section on metropolitan statistical areas. To see the FBI’s data click here.

Click here to see full Crime in America 2016 Coverage, including the Safest & Most Dangerous Cities and States.

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2016: Safest & Most Dangerous Midwest Metros appeared first on Law Street.