Editorial Roundup: New England
Hearst Connecticut Media. May 12, 2023.
Editorial: State should enact parole reforms
The far-too-easy response to crime in recent American history has been to lock people away and forget about them. This has the benefit of expedience and some emotional satisfaction, but is harmful to society and individuals in countless ways. It has led to a generation damaged by the scourge of mass incarceration, and led policymakers in search of a better way.
Progress has been a hard slog. Anything that smacks of going easy on criminals is anathema to politicians, who worry a fear-based campaign will dislodge them from office, and they’re often right. It takes courage to go against the incarceration-first model of criminal justice.
Connecticut has seen some gains as well as frustrating backsliding. Prison populations are down and some facilities have closed, for which the state should be proud. If nothing else, keeping people behind bars is hugely expensive, and the state has many needs.
There have been other steps forward, too. A Clean Slate law was passed and signed by Gov. Ned Lamont, which allows people who have been out of prison and kept out of trouble for a certain period to have their criminal records erased, which reduces recidivism. But implementation has been slow, leading advocates to worry when people will be made whole again.
The latest frustration concerns commutations, where sentences for people who have already served years or decades behind bars are shortened. Connecticut was finally moving forward on expanding this process, even as only several dozen people a year were affected. But outcry from crime victims and their families led to a pause in that process.
Now the General Assembly is moving ahead on another initiative, one that would offer a chance for some of the youngest offenders in prison. If a bill passed by the state Senate were to become law, people serving prison sentences for crimes committed before they turned 21 years old would be guaranteed access to parole.
They wouldn’t be guaranteed to be released. There would still be a process. But by making this change, the state could recognize that acts people commit when they are young, even the most serious crimes, do not define a person for life.
The proposal is an acknowledgement that people’s brains continue to mature even as they move past their childhood years. The science on this question has advanced, and we know that people are not fully who they will become until well after they’re out of school.
State law currently bars courts from sentencing people to life without parole for crimes committed up until their 18th birthday. This bill would change the age to 21.
Objections in the Senate focused on the heinous nature of some of the crimes that would be included in this change, including murder. But nothing on the table would guarantee an offender’s release. It would mean that person would be eligible for parole.
To truly change our broken criminal justice system, we need systematic changes. Minor fixes at the margins aren’t good enough. And part of that wholesale change means reexamining the kind of sentences we hand down, even for serious crimes.
It won’t always be easy, but ensuring mere eligibility for parole for young offenders is not too much to ask.
___
Portland Press Herald. May 14, 2023.
Editorial: The wrong compromise on guns will invite more violence
With background checks, waiting periods and prohibition of sale or transfer of guns where necessary, the Maine Legislature has an opportunity to get it right. Will it?
For decades, we’ve been told that no law can keep a gun out of the wrong person’s hands, and that the right to bear arms is unassailable. It’s left us with a country awash in guns and crippled by gun violence, and very few means of quickly turning things around.
In Maine, we might not be able to do much about the 460 million or so firearms floating around this country. But we can do our part to keep them from being used to end lives.
Bills now under consideration in Augusta are not a cure-all by any means. But together they would make it less likely that a firearm finds its way into the hands of the wrong person at the wrong time, both here and in the states where Maine’s lax gun laws are capable of contributing to violence.
EFFECTIVE MEASURES
Top among them is legislation from House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross that would require background checks for most private firearms sales.
Others, also from Democratic lawmakers, would implement a 72-hour waiting period for buying a firearm and make it a crime under state law to sell or transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.
There are a lot of factors that influence gun violence, so the effect of any one policy is often muted, or at least hard to separate from all the noise.
But experience across different states shows us that policies like these have had at least some success in keeping guns away from the wrong people. They may not pose an insurmountable barrier to those who want a gun for the wrong reasons, but it’s clear that they do stop people in many circumstances – and that they do so without imposing any undue burden on law-abiding gun owners.
Opponents of these measures, including the influential Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, question whether any of them would reduce gun violence, though evidence suggests that they would. They also say that the bills would infringe on constitutional rights, and that they are not needed in a state as safe, and with as many responsible gun owners, as Maine.
Finally, with regards to background checks, opponents argue that Mainers have already rejected a similar proposal on a referendum ballot in 2016.
As for the 2016 referendum, this year’s proposal represents an improvement, with more exclusions carved out.
And a lot has changed since 2016.
Tens of millions more guns are now in circulation. On top of the everyday gun violence that plagues both large cities and rural states, mass shootings have become a sickeningly regular part of American life.
NOT SAFE ENOUGH
Just last month, Maine experienced that violence firsthand. In what should have been an eye-opening event for everyone, four people were shot to death in Bowdoin, and another three were injured by gunfire on Interstate 295 near Yarmouth.
The shooter, police say, was prohibited from having a gun. But he apparently had no problem finding one.
Just in the last week, there was a nonfatal shooting in downtown Portland and shots fired into the air during a dispute in Westbrook.
Maine may be one of the safest states in the nation, but it also has the highest rate of gun violence in New England – a statistic that includes firearm homicides and suicides. A 72-hour waiting period, a new step in obtaining a gun, has the potential to stop people from acting rashly, whatever their circumstances.
And Maine’s lax laws contribute to gun violence elsewhere. In 2020, a man killed 22 people and injured three in Nova Scotia using firearms acquired illegally from Maine. Last month, a Turner woman was charged with buying more than 50 firearms in a three-month span and selling them to a gang in California; just two of the guns have been recovered.
It’s clear that people with bad intent look at Maine as an easy place to acquire weapons and that instituting proper background checks could prevent tragedy.
For the chance to stop a shooting before it happens, is the minor inconvenience of background check, or a short waiting period, really too much to take?
Private negotiations on these and other gun-related bills are underway in the Legislature. Gov. Janet Mills, who met recently in her office with the Sportsman’s Alliance, may be eyeing a compromise that the gun-rights group can support.
But any deal that doesn’t include these proven measures for keeping guns out of the wrong hands isn’t a compromise at all. It’s an invitation for more violence.
___
Bangor Daily News. May 16, 2023.
Editorial: Creating a commission to review Maine’s COVID-19 response is still a good idea
It made sense back in 2021 to create a state commission to review Maine’s COVID-19 response and better prepare for future pandemics. If anything, it makes even more sense today.
Maine lawmakers unfortunately decided not to move forward with this type of commission two years ago. Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Commissioner Jeanne Lambrew opposed the idea at the time, in part because the pandemic response was ongoing.
But things have changed since then. The federal government’s emergency declaration ended on May 11. The World Health Organization has declared that COVID-19 is no longer a global health emergency. Maine’s state of emergency has been over for almost two years.
None of this means that COVID-19 is gone. Awareness and caution remain warranted. So do reflection and preparation for the future.
“If you listen to the public health experts, as we’ve been calling for throughout the pandemic, it’s not a matter of if another pandemic happens down the road — it’s a matter of when,” we wrote back in 2021. “The more policymakers can understand, in depth, the ways that different elements of Maine’s COVID response have worked and haven’t worked, the better our state will be positioned for that eventual next crisis.”
This is still true. And once again, lawmakers have an opportunity to do this work by creating a COVID-19 review commission. The proposed legislation from Republican Sen. Lisa Keim would create a 14-person commission including the Health and Human Services Commissioner (or their designee) and 13 legislators — six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent. While DHHS opposed creating this type of commission in 2021, spokesperson Jackie Farwell told us Tuesday that the department has not taken a position on the current proposal.
The commission would be tasked with various areas of emphasis such as studying the laws, rules, policies and executive orders related to the state’s COVID-19 response; reviewing contracts related to the governor’s emergency proclamation and executive orders; reviewing DHHS data related to COVID-19 including suicide and drug overdose data, studying the Maine CDC’s response including testing and contract tracing; studying the COVID-related policies and rules implemented by various state departments such as DHHS, the Department of Education and the Department of Economic and Community Development; reviewing coordination between federal, state and local governments; reviewing vaccine distribution; reviewing the availability of medical equipment and supplies; reviewing communication and information sharing between agencies; reviewing the response of hospitals, nursing homes and other congregate settings; reviewing policies related to economic relief; reviewing the health and economic impacts on communities, including racial and ethnic minority populations; and reviewing the emergency preparedness and response at various levels of government.
“This resolve isn’t about placing blame on people or agencies,” Keim, the assistant Republican leader in the Senate, told the Health and Human Services Committee on May 8. “It is about learning what worked and what didn’t so that we can be better prepared if and when this happens again.”
That is the right approach, though we are skeptical that this effort would be completely devoid of finger pointing or assigning blame. Filling the commission with public health, economic and legal experts rather than current lawmakers might be one way to help depoliticize things. But either way, the public health value of conducting this broad review, and having it to inform future state pandemic response, outweighs the potential for any political grandstanding.
We thought there was a clear value to this type of commission in 2021, and that value remains clear today.
We’ll say it again, having generally given Gov. Janet Mills and her administration credit for how the state responded to COVID-19: Everyone should want to better prepare the state for future public health emergencies. If done right, this commission can help in that important effort. Lawmakers should create this commission and get started on this review in a collaborative and focused way.
___
Boston Globe. May 15, 2023.
Editorial: Massachusetts needs to regulate ghost guns
Amid a spate of mass shootings across the United States, the Commonwealth should do everything it can to protect our citizens.
Last year, a California man killed his three daughters and himself. An 18-year-old in Kansas killed two school employees. This March, a Colorado high school student shot and wounded two administrators. The common theme in these shootings, and many others, is the use of “ghost guns,” guns bought in parts that can be assembled at home.
Ghost guns also have an increasing presence in Massachusetts. Since 2020, Springfield police have seized 977 illegally possessed firearms, of which 86 were ghost guns, with the prevalence growing each year. Boston police told NBC Boston that they seized 58 ghost guns in 2021, up from 15 in 2019.
Ghost guns have no serial number, so unlike other firearms, they are untraceable. They can be acquired by someone without a gun license who buys parts online — or prints them with a 3D printer — and assembles them.
Yet Massachusetts, like many other states, fails to regulate ghost guns. According to an analysis by researchers at Northeastern University School of Law, done for the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, it is illegal for a licensed dealer to sell a gun without a serial number, and it is illegal to remove a serial number. But there is no law preventing someone from owning a homemade gun that never had a serial number. In addition, state laws regulating firearms do not cover gun parts, so an unlicensed person can legally buy gun parts — though they would need a license to legally possess the fully built gun.
Massachusetts has some of the nation’s strongest gun laws, but there is more to be done. House Speaker Ron Mariano tasked House Judiciary Committee Chair Michael Day with leading a group that is studying those laws to recommend changes.
One legislative priority should be regulating ghost guns to ensure that any gun, regardless of how it is made, is treated equally. All guns must have serial numbers, and measures are also needed to ensure that anyone who possesses a gun has a license, regardless of how and where the gun was made.
“This is not banning the use of guns. This is just making sensible laws,” said Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem, who has sponsored several bills to update gun laws, including one regulating ghost guns.
Another issue is data analysis. Massachusetts already collects information about guns recovered at crime scenes and publishes reports about lost and stolen guns, crime scene guns, gun dealers tied to crime guns, and guns recovered from people prohibited from having them. But some advocates want the state to go further.
The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence wants lawmakers to consider establishing a center for gun violence research, similar to state-funded centers in California and New Jersey. Legislation proposed by Creem and House Public Health Committee Chair Marjorie Decker would require some additional analysis and make the raw data available to researchers, with the hope that better data analysis would help policy makers understand what additional steps are needed.
The Globe previously editorialized in favor of banning the manufacture in Massachusetts of the type of assault weapons that are prohibited from being used here. “If it’s not safe for residents of Massachusetts, why is it safe for people in other states?” asked John Rosenthal, cofounder of the gun safety group Stop Handgun Violence. That is another idea likely to be considered by lawmakers this year, though they have to weigh the economic cost if gun makers move out of state.
Also worth considering is a proposal to require live fire training to get a gun license. Current law requires that applicants take a class on firearms safety, but that can be done in a classroom without visiting a range or shooting a gun. State Representative David Linsky, a Natick Democrat who sponsored a bill to impose a live fire training requirement, compared it to taking the classroom portion of driver’s education but not actually driving. “I think before you get a gun permit, you should be able to show you know how to handle a gun safely,” Linsky said.
The United States is experiencing a spate of mass shootings, and street violence remains a problem. Any real change of policy needs to come from Congress, since guns easily cross state lines. But barring congressional action, Massachusetts should do everything it can to protect our citizens.
___
Boston Herald. May 16, 2023.
Editorial: Millionaires tax takes bite out of the Bay State
The voices of reason who warned Massachusetts lawmakers that spiking taxes on wealthier Bay Staters would end in a beeline for the exits can point to the latest IRS data and say “we told you so.”
That doesn’t help the state, but it does underscore that the relentless push for a millionaires tax and other hikes on high-earners is ultimately undermining the goal of “fair share” proponents: boosting revenue to pay for Massachusetts programs.
The Pioneer Institute crunched 2021 data from the IRS, and its analysis revealed that net out-migration from Massachusetts is speeding up and is greatest among affluent residents who pay the most in state taxes. Between 2019 and 2021, Massachusetts rose from ninth to fourth among all states in net out-migration of wealth, behind only California, New York, and Illinois.
We were warned. In the runup last year to the passage of the Millionaires Tax, opponents outlined the consequences: David Tuerck with the Beacon Hill Institute produced financial predictions.
Tuerck said the tax hike would “kill” 9,000 jobs in the first year and cause up to 4,000 high-earning Massachusetts families to relocate.
State Rep. Nicholas Boldyga, R-Southwick, said top earners in Massachusetts “are going to flee the state in droves” to avoid the tax, leaving the commonwealth “in a much worse position.”
State Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica, said “the reality is that Massachusetts is flush with cash,” arguing Massachusetts has no need to raise taxes on the wealthy with so much green flowing in already.
“We’re already hemorrhaging people to the South,” said Lucas Noble, a small business owner from North Andover. “To states that have beautiful weather and are tax-free. Why make that worse?”
That’s the hallmark of a progressive agenda: Gin up a problem, pass legislation, and make matters worse for everyone.
“Net out-migration has nearly quintupled and the largest spike in departures occurred in 2020 and 2021, as remote work took hold and most other states were cutting taxes,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios, who coauthored “Tax Reality Sets In” with Mary Connaughton and Eileen McAnneny. “Massachusetts’ inattention to tax and competitiveness policies is leading to a tsunami of departures.”
One myth of the millionaires tax is that those who worked hard for their success would be just fine with having cash-grabbers have another go at their wallets.
Massachusetts, however, doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
According to the data, 43 states enacted some form of tax relief in 2021 and 2022, While Massachusetts contemplated and ultimately raised income taxes during that time, 21 states reduced them.
Thanks to a boost from the remote model, individuals can work from anywhere, say a state with lower taxes, while still holding a Bay State job.
“If you build it, they will come,” as “Field of Dreams” famously noted. Here, if you overtax them, they will leave.
Now what’s Massachusetts going to do to stem the exodus of people and all that revenue?
END