The Buffalo murders are the consequences of our political rhetoric and policy choices
([link removed])

Today, four days after the murders in Buffalo, above all we stand united in grief and anger and solidarity with the families and community that were attacked.

But this was a political crime. And it’s not wrong, not premature, to point to two intertwined political sicknesses that helped cause it.

One is the embrace of nakedly racist rhetoric by significant parts of our political system. The murderer drove hundreds of miles to target a store in a Black neighborhood, having been radicalized by the pernicious “great replacement” conspiracy theory. As has been widely discussed in recent days, this is not just something heard in fringe chat groups. It is espoused by the highest-rated show on cable news, garbage spewed into the world by wealthy corporations and by leading politicians interested only in their own power. Ideas have consequences, words have consequences. White supremacist violence is the result — in Buffalo, in Charlottesville, in Pittsburgh, in Charlotte, in El Paso.

As Rep. Liz Cheney, the former House Republican Caucus chair, put it, “The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and anti-Semitism. History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse.”

The other political sickness is our broken political system’s inability to do something about the surge in gun violence and the profusion of weapons. There are now an estimated 400 million guns in the United States. The killer took advantage of porous laws and poor enforcement.

What happened in Buffalo showed the hollowness of the arguments by National Rifle Association lobbyists over the years. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun,” they claim, “is a good guy with a gun.” A childish analysis, yes, and also wrong. There was a good guy with a gun: the guard, heroic former Buffalo police officer Aaron Salter, who shot the murderer. But his bullets were deflected by body armor that is legal in all 50 states. Our laws have consequences.

As I wrote last week, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will soon strike down New York State’s century-old gun laws. Such a Second Amendment ruling would likely have a bigger impact than D.C. v. Heller, where the Court for the first time enshrined the notion that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. More guns will mean more crime in crowded cities. As New York City Mayor Eric Adams pointed out yesterday, there are everyday massacres. Describing an 11-year-old girl killed in the Bronx, “pain is pain.”

These massacres can numb or they can clarify. They can depress us or remind us of what’s at stake. A quarter-century ago, the Oklahoma City Bombing shook the country and brought many to their senses. Will that happen today?

At moments like this, we must stand together as a community, with one another. We must unite against hate. We will fight for a more just vision for our country and our state, a vision of a vibrant multiracial democracy where we live in peace with one another, which must be our future.

Democracy

The Big Lie in the Keystone State’s Race for Governor

The Pennsylvania gubernatorial primary is today. Election denial has loomed large in the race, the eventual winner of which will appoint the state’s top elections officer. Ian Vandewalker discusses the major candidates, their massive fundraising totals and recent poll results, and their stances on conspiracy theories that Trump actually won the 2020 election. “If the candidates’ past statements and standing in the polls is any indication, election denial is likely to continue to be a central issue in this contest with potential repercussions for the administration of the 2024 elections,” he writes. Read more

([link removed])


Constitution

How Police Can Use Digital Surveillance to Enforce Abortion Bans

Because of inadequate privacy protections, it is not hard for the government to obtain information like people’s cell phone location data and internet search history. Such concerns are magnified ahead of the Supreme Court’s likely decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, as a wealth of information is readily available to identify and potentially prosecute abortion seekers and providers. “The myriad of ways that largely unregulated surveillance tools can be used to target reproductive freedom shows how urgently Americans need protection from the tsunami of data that can be used against them,” Faiza Patel writes. JUST SECURITY

([link removed])

Abortion Likely to Fuel State Supreme Court Election Battles

The Brennan Center found state supreme court races saw $97 million in campaign spending in the 2019–20 election cycle, a sum that could increase if Roe v. Wade is struck down and state courts are placed “front-and-center in the fight over abortion access,” according to Doug Keith. “These races . . . in some states are likely going to take a prominence that they’ve never had before.” ASSOCIATED PRESS

([link removed])


Justice

Prosecutors Standing Against Abortion Bans

More than two dozen states are likely to ban many or all abortions as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned. But a growing group of prosecutors is promising to use their charging discretion and not prosecute abortion-related conduct if such laws go into effect. The nonprofit group Fair and Just Prosecution has been organizing this effort. Executive Director Miriam Krinsky talks about the enormous power of prosecutorial discretion and how it can be used for protecting people instead of only pursuing them. Read more

([link removed])

Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: TONIGHT, Universal Voting

([link removed])

Tuesday, May 17, 6–7 p.m. ET

Twenty-six countries require participation in their elections. In 100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting

([link removed])

, co-authors E.J. Dionne and Miles Rapoport argue that the United States should follow in their footsteps. After all, Americans are required to pay taxes and serve on juries. Join us for a conversation with the authors and New York City Council member Alexa Avilés about universal voting and how to implement it. RSVP today

([link removed])



VIRTUAL EVENT: Who Gets to Be an American?

([link removed])

Wednesday, June 8, 1–2 p.m. ET

Americans who are people of color are frequently subjected to undue suspicion, greater surveillance, and other policies that contradict the American promise of equality. Join us for a live discussion on these often discriminatory practices and the efforts to fight against them with Faiza Patel, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program; Sahar Aziz, executive director of the Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race and Rights; Ann Chih Lin, director of the University of Michigan’s Lieberthal-Rogel Center for Chinese Studies; and Vicki B. Gaubeca, director at the Southern Border Communities Coalition. RSVP today

([link removed])

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

([link removed])

News

Liz Howard on attacks against election officials // NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC RADIO

([link removed])

Sean Morales-Doyle on the Brennan Center’s lawsuit challenging Texas voter suppression laws // HOUSTON PUBLIC MEDIA

([link removed])

Lawrence Norden on the campaign to undermine confidence in elections // GUARDIAN

([link removed])

Gowri Ramachandran on the issues with hand-counting paper ballots // NEVADA CURRENT

([link removed])

Will Wilder on new laws targeting election officials // CNN

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]


([link removed])

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

([link removed])

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])