At Governor Martin O’Malley’s announcement for the Democratic presidential candidacy this previous Saturday, there were numerous protesters carrying signs that read “NOMALLEY” and “Stop killer cops.” Instead of receiving Maryland’s support for the presidential bid, there were scant supporters and numerous protesters. Despite this lukewarm reaction, O’Malley laid bare his grand plans for immigration reform, the LGBT community, and leveling the economic playing field. But O’Malley has remained silent on one message that resonates with Baltimore in particular and with millennials everywhere–police brutality.

O’Malley looks pretty good on paper. He ended the death penalty, legalized same-sex marriage, and passed the Dream Act in Maryland. But his reaction to crime in Baltimore some 15 years ago as mayor has provoked mixed responses. On one hand, O’Malley dramatically reduced drug violence and homicide in Baltimore. But on the other, he adopted a zero tolerance approach to crime that some claim has sparked the protests resulting from Freddie Gray’s death.

One of the largest criticisms of O’Malley’s actions as mayor was the number of arrests sky-rocketing to 108,447 in 2005, amounting to about one sixth of the Baltimore population. The main reason these arrests were controversial is because many resulted from petty crimes. In addition to more arrests, O’Malley also implemented CitiStat, a data-tracking management tool that holds government employees accountable for their actions. CitiStat allows the government to gather data on an array of performance indicators, such as response time or employees who do not come into work. CitiStat was originally on track to monitor weekly issues, such as domestic violence and felony gun arrests. But this monitoring abruptly stopped and the employees working on these issues were sent a stream of meeting cancellations. This abrupt change has led some to claim that this tool disproportionately targets minorities and women.

O’Malley’s popularity among Marylanders varies; there are those outspoken enough who chose to protest his announcement and there are others who show their unrelenting support. In terms of approval ratings, O’Malley recently saw 47 percent approval, but also 47 percent who actively disapprove of him.

In the national playing field with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, O’Malley is clearly trailing behind. Clinton epitomizes traditional Democratic Party values and relies on old money and name recognition in order to garner support for her presidential bid while Sanders appeals to the liberal, left wing population vying for reform and dramatic change. O’Malley, however, falls somewhere in between. O’Malley seems to be anticipating an equivalent political field to the 2008 Democratic presidential race when Obama rose to the challenge in victory. O’Malley is hoping to fill the moderate vacuum between Clinton and Sanders by presenting himself as a liberal alternative to Clinton who is not quite as radical as Sanders.

But O’Malley has avoided taking any prominent stance on police reforms or police brutality, as seen on his website for his presidential campaign. He hits his major points regarding income inequality in America and touches on a few gender-related topics, but the closest he gets to police brutality is mentioning the need for accountability of our governments.

O’Malley’s rhetoric regarding Freddie Gray’s death is sympathetic, but he guides the discussion of police brutality away from race or policing by emphasizing “the scourge of hopelessness in America’s cities.” O’Malley resorts to numerous tactics to avoid the issue of institutionalizing police brutality and militarization, such as ignoring the problem in his presidential bid announcement and not featuring crime or violence on his website. This could ultimately lead to the downfall of his campaign.

When comparing O’Malley to Sanders, Sanders has already taken a firm position against police brutality. Sanders immediately recognized the problem within the United States when police departments are treated as militaries. Likewise, Clinton has taken a similar stand in calling for reforms in police departments so African Americans are not disproportionately targeted. Contrarily, O’Malley has said little to nothing.

O’Malley’s silence on police brutality speaks volumes to the actions he is willing to take in reforming the police system. His silence is blaring, especially considering his previous position as the mayor of Baltimore. This omission, in addition to his lack of support from Marylanders puts his entire presidential bid on shaky ground. His chances of winning over Sanders and Clinton seem almost nonexistent if he is not willing to speak out against police brutality as his opponents have done.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Martin O’Malley Misses the Mark on This Big Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday morning that he will be running in the 2016 presidential race, making him the first Republican candidate to officially declare his bid for the presidency.  But if you thought all election birth certificate drama ended with Obama, you were wrong. This time Cruz’s citizenship is under scrutiny, causing some people to wonder if the Canadian-born U.S. Senator can actually become president.

It’s common knowledge that according to the Constitution you must be a “natural-born-citizen” in the United States in order to become its president or vice president. Sorry Arnold Schwarzenegger. But how is it possible for Canadian born Senator Cruz to run for office?

For starters Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada to an American mother and Cuban émigré father, received U.S. citizenship from his mother, but also maintained Canadian citizenship by way of birth. In 2013 when he was being considered as a potential candidate, questions regarding Cruz’s citizenship began to surface, prompting him to release a statement:

Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter.

Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.

Cruz’s became “All-American” in 2014 when he signed his official “Canadian Renunciation Letter” absolving him of his Canadian citizenship. Despite this, some conservatives like Donald Trump have continued to question Cruz’s eligibility, albeit quite passively, calling it a “hurdle” for Cruz. That’s a stark difference from the attack dog-like aggressiveness from birthers like Trump who not too long ago demanded to see Obama’s birth certificate with their own eyes. That group went so far as to claim that the president was really born in Kenya and his birth certificate was a forgery.

In case you were wondering, Cruz isn’t the first presidential candidate to be born outside of the United States. ABC News was quick to point out that both John McCain and George Romney ran for president, despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone and Mexico, respectively.

So just to make it clear yes, Cruz is American and yes, he is allowed to run for President. Whether or not he’ll even become the Republican nominee is another story, but for now lets put an end to another round of trivial “birth certificate drama.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz’s Presidential Bid: Will There Be Citizenship Questions? appeared first on Law Street.