logo
Maryland Legislature slow to pass policing reforms after Freddie Gray's death

Maryland Legislature slow to pass policing reforms after Freddie Gray's death

Yahoo24-04-2025
BALTIMORE — Jill Carter, a Baltimore Democrat who served in both the state Senate and House of Delegates, sponsored police reform bills throughout her 20-year political career, including a bill that failed mere weeks before Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man, died of injuries he sustained while in police custody.
In Carter's opinion, had the Legislature not 'turned a blind eye to the nature of police reform' in 2014 and 2015 'it is quite possible Freddie Gray might not have been killed,' she said.
Ultimately, Black women like Carter took the lead on passing substantive police reform policy — six years later.
Late House Speaker Michael E. Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., both Democrats, convened a 20-member Public Safety and Policing Work Group in the months after Gray's death to study law enforcement training resources, hiring and recruiting practices and community engagement policies.
Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh served as the workgroup's Senate chair. Pugh, who was a state senator at the time of Gray's death, declined to be interviewed for this story.
The work group was also tasked with reviewing the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights.
Enacted in 1974, the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights provided procedural due process protections for investigations into officers who were facing potential disciplinary action, demotion or job loss based on internal or external complaints.
Under that law, police officials had to wait 10 days before interrogating an officer regarding the substance of the complaint against them. Officers would then be subject to an administrative hearing to determine if they were guilty. If the board, which was composed of other law enforcement members, determined that the officer was guilty, it would make a disciplinary recommendation to the agency's chief, who had the ultimate authority over punitive outcomes.
For officers to face potential disciplinary action, complaints had to be filed within 90 days of the incident in question.
Maj. Neill Franklin, a retired police officer and the former executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, said in an interview with The Baltimore Sun that the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights was necessary when it came about in the '70s, but had 'outlived its time' when it was under review in this millennium.
'During that time, police officers did have problems with being persecuted by some of their administrators … and so the protection came about regarding hearings, how they had to take place, what protections they had — basically their rights having a representative, so on and so forth,' said Franklin, who testified in Annapolis in favor of reform of the law. 'But where we are now, needing significant reforms of policing, the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights was due for some changes.'
To Franklin, it came down to civilians needing transparency and power regarding disciplinary actions for the officers who patrol their communities. He said they believed the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights provided too much protection for police who were abusing their power and, in some instances, 'were actually using force to the level where it was an actual assault and battery.'
But Carter said there was a public appetite for police reform legislation at the start of the 2015 session, months before Gray died in police custody.
Before Gray's death, the movement for police reform was ignited in the United States by a series of nationally highlighted use-of-force incidents, including the 2014 police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio; and Eric Garner in New York.
Franklin said that the advent of camera phones, allowing civilians to provide evidence of use-of-force incidents, brought forth a new push toward reform.
'I remember the appetite from the public for police reform has always been there,' he said. 'The Black community was saying, 'This is what we've been trying to tell you over the past few decades.''
Carter, who was serving in the House of Delegates at the time, sponsored legislation during the 2015 session to alter several provisions.
Under her bill, the 10-day waiting period for officer interrogations would have been stricken. Civilians would have been allowed to sit on administrative hearing boards, which would convene upon the officer's request after the police chief issued a decision of guilt and proposed disciplinary action. The board would have then either affirmed or overturned the chief's decision. Complaints could have been filed for up to a year after the offense was committed.
Carter's 2015 legislation was ultimately quashed in the House Judiciary Committee, but she recalled people sleeping in the halls of the House Office building, waiting for their chance to testify in favor of her bill that year.
Dayvon Love, the director of public policy for Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, said his organization partnered with other local institutions to bus people to the State House in support of the legislation.
'The movement started in Annapolis in the legislative session,' Carter said. 'That laid a foundation for why people were primed and ready to go with Freddie Gray.'
In 2016, the General Assembly passed legislation based on recommendations from the Public Safety and Policing Work Group. That bill amended the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights to require police agencies to allow two civilians to serve as non-voting members on administrative hearing boards and to allow complaints to be filed within one year of an offense, among other measures.
In a July 2015 interview on WBAL Radio, Carter called the Public Safety and Policing Work Group 'a play group,' saying she didn't believe it was 'designed to create serious reform.'
'I believe that the motivation was to ensure that the status quo was maintained, and that no real reforms were produced,' she said.
Love called the workgroup 'a very typical, liberal Democratic Party approach.' He said he doesn't believe legislative leadership intended to 'address racism and the dehumanization of Black people at the hands of law enforcement,' but rather to 'appear to do something on the issue of police brutality' without upsetting the power balance.
While other reform bills were introduced after 2016, the Legislature did not take serious action to reconstruct policing in Maryland until after George Floyd was murdered in May 2020 by Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer who knelt on Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes.
Chauvin was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder in April 2021.
Following Floyd's death, House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, a Democrat and the first woman and Black person to head her chamber, convened the House Workgroup to Address Police Reform and Accountability in Maryland. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee held a rare series of bill hearings during the Legislature's interim to workshop legislation it planned to debate when the General Assembly reconvened the following January.
Carter, who was then serving in the Senate, recalled a cultural shift. In a Democratic Caucus meeting, Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Baltimore Democrat, asked Black senators to share their experiences with law enforcement.
'Every Black person in the Senate at the time talked about a personal experience they had being mistreated by law enforcement,' Carter said as tears welled in her eyes. 'For the first time, I felt like our colleagues were really beginning to see this as an issue and humanize it. All of a sudden, they're like, 'We've got to do something.''
'They could see George Floyd. They could see the thing on video, and they heard from some of the people right here,' she said.
When the 2021 session convened, Jones, Carter and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Vanessa Atterbeary — all Black women — led the charge to transform Maryland policing standards.
After 90 days and dozens of hours of debate, the Legislature passed a sweeping package of police reform bills, including legislation that largely repealed the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, provided for more community participation in police discipline and allowed certain law enforcement personnel records to be reviewed under the Maryland Public Information Act.
Though the 2021 repeal of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights was a step in the right direction, Love and other advocates lamented its limitations on community participation.
'The pinnacle of the work around police accountability is community control and oversight of institutions of law enforcement,' he said. 'What we got in 2021 is we got more community, non-law enforcement participation in the internal disciplinary processes of law enforcement. That is better than what we got in 2016. What we got in 2016 is basically nothing.'
Why did it take Floyd's death at the hands of law enforcement for the Legislature to act when Maryland police have killed other Black people since Gray's 2015 death?
William Green was killed by a Prince George's County police officer in 2020. Emanuel Oates was killed by Baltimore County police in 2019. Anton Black was killed by police on the Eastern Shore in 2018.
'Police have too much political power,' Franklin said, singling out the Fraternal Order of Police. 'That's the main reason.'
Franklin pointed to political donations and the union's ability to organize people to vote representatives out of office. He said it's 'the typical game of politics' — while some lawmakers attempt to maintain power, others focus on the impact of their policy.
'That's why [Carter] and others like her have such a rough time with the old guard in the Legislature, because they're about the work and the other ones are about' getting elected, said Franklin.
Carter said that Floyd's death was 'more in-your-face' than Gray's, but noted that it was 'emotionally debilitating' for her to watch Maryland families suffer the consequences of police brutality.
'This isn't going to be a popular thing to say, but it's the truth: White people began to organize and protest,' Carter said of the reason gains were made after Floyd's murder. 'All of a sudden, there were white allies on this issue.'
She also credits the shift in legislative leadership seen in Ferguson, a white millennial, and Jones, a Black woman, as well as younger membership in the General Assembly.
'I hate to say this, but what they could get away with in 2015, they wouldn't be able to get away with that … in 2021,' said Carter.
Franklin is concerned about gains made in police reform backsliding under President Donald Trump, who deactivated the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database run by the U.S. Department of Justice via executive order. He said he fears it will 'embolden' police unions and create pushback to existing policy.
'We still have a long way to go in regard to police reform,' Franklin said. 'I just think we're in trouble.'
_____
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Taken apart at a political chop shop: Proposed map would split Lodi into three Congressional districts
Taken apart at a political chop shop: Proposed map would split Lodi into three Congressional districts

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Taken apart at a political chop shop: Proposed map would split Lodi into three Congressional districts

Aug. 19—California voters will be going to the polls in November to approve new Congressional districts that favor Democrats, and maps released Friday reveal that Lodi could be split into three districts. Currently, the entirety of Lodi is part of the 9th Congressional District held by Tracy-based Democrat Josh Harder. If voters approve new district boundaries this fall, Harder's district would include the southeastern portion of the city west of Hutchins Street, south of Kettleman Lane and east of Cherokee Lane, with a chunk east of Stockton Street and south of Mission Street. The new 9th District would include the cities of Manteca, Tracy, Pittsburg, Antioch and Oakley, and a portion of north Stockton north of Mormon Slough and west of Wilson Way. A chunk of north and central Lodi bordered by Kettleman Lane in the south, Cherokee Lane in the east and Lower Sacramento Road in the west would be in a new 7th District, along with Galt, Elk Grove, Wilton, Sloughouse, Clements, Linden, Farmington and West Sacramento. The remainder of Lodi would be in a new District 8 with Isleton, Rio Vista, Dixon, Vacaville, Fairfeild, Vallejo, Richmond and Hercules. "Slicing up our city for political ends benefits none of our residents, particularly as we're a state where redistricting is decided by citizen panels, not elected officials," Lodi City Councilwoman Lisa Craig-Hensley said. "Understanding the unique values and needs of Lodi residents is the job of elected officials. Only in that way can we make fair decisions that benefit the whole community. Lodi needs to be kept whole to benefit the residents who deserve representation that reflects our shared needs and values." Lodi Mayor Cameron Bregman said the proposal was simply a power grab that ignores the will of California voters, who have determined district boundaries twice in the last 17 years. "Above all, having elected officials is about representation," he said. "This state, county, and now city must deal with the grim fact that this redistricting is not about representation, but partisanship. We can kiss any federal help goodbye if the redistricting is approved." The redistricting effort is part of Gov. Gavin Newsom's battle with President Donald Trump, who has pushed for redistricting Congressional districts in Texas to favor Republicans. The map released Friday by the Legislature adds five more Democratic-leaning seats, and make four even more left-leaning. District 1, the northeastern corner of the state represented by Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, would change from "safe" to "safe" Democratic, as would District 3, which runs along California's eastern border represented by GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley. District 41, a battleground seat held by GOP Rep. Ken Calvert, transforms from safe Republican to safe Democratic, while District 48, which spans Riverside and San Diego counties and is held by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, changes from safe Republican to lean Democratic. Harder's District 9 would move from "lean" Democratic to safe Democratic, as would District 27, a northern Los Angeles County seat held by Democratic Rep. George Whitesides. District 47, an Orange County district represented by Democratic Rep. Dave Min, also moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic, as does District 45 which Democratic Rep. Derek Tran won last year in the most expensive race in the country. District 13, narrowly won by Democrat Rep. Adam Gray, changes from lean Republican to safe Democratic. "There are many cases where I've been supportive of the Legislature sending a bill to the voters for approval," Assemblyman Heath Flora, R-Ripon said. "This is not one of those cases, and the only reason is that so much of this process has been in secret and against the will of the voters from the beginning." David Cushman, chair of the San Joaquin County Republican Party, said the organization would fight Newsom's attempt to undermine the fair representation of residents. "Our citizens wanted to make sure we had representation that reflected our needs and values, not those of cities that have nothing in common with our county," he said. "The maps released yesterday are a direct affront to the hard work and countless hours spent just four years ago ensuring our county remained unified in one district. Gavin Newsom and the Sacramento politicians are attempting to split up our county and our communities for partisan political gain, not for the benefit of our residents." State Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, said in a social media post last week that the redistricting effort is "fighting fire with fire" as Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott attempt to add five Republican seats to the House of Representatives. He suggested other states that lean Democrat should do the same. "I've been through Congressional redistricting twice," he said. "It's a difficult experience for House members who spend most of the preceding decade developing relationships and understanding the challenges in their districts only to lose many of the people and regions they have worked for. "I would not advocate for mid-decade redistricting or for overturning California's independent redistricting commission except in extreme circumstances," he added. "The current situation is an emergency." McNerney said Trump thrives on division and retribution and his attempt to tilt the scales toward himself and the GOP in 2026 would democracy and election integrity. "If California and other blue states fail to respond to mid-decade gerrymandering by Texas and other red states, we'll face three-and-a-half more years of an unchecked Trump, further wrecking our economy and our democratic institutions thanks to a compliant House, Senate, and Supreme Court," he said. "If it flips to a Democratic majority in the 2026 election, as expected, the House will be able to put brakes on Trump's dash to autocracy." Manuel Zapata, chair of the San Joaquin County Democratic Party, told ABC10 over the weekend that while the redistricting would be "unfortunate" for Lodi, he defended Newsom's reasoning. "What happens in Texas will directly affect California because of the way that the House of Representatives works," he said. "So, it is a very local issue when we have one party completely rigging the system on a national level that is going to affect every single state." Solve the daily Crossword

Get rid of mail-in voting? Trump goal sparks debate, threatened lawsuits
Get rid of mail-in voting? Trump goal sparks debate, threatened lawsuits

USA Today

time15 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Get rid of mail-in voting? Trump goal sparks debate, threatened lawsuits

Trump has long railed against mail-in voting but experts say states and the Congress control election rules rather than the president. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's latest push to end absentee voting has ignited a firestorm of criticism and intense debate about the nation's election rules as the next midterm and presidential campaigns kick into gear. Election-law experts said a president has no role in governing elections. Advocacy groups threatened lawsuits aiming to block Trump. And Democrats braced for a political fight heading into the 2026 and 2028 election cycles as they look to rebound after a disastrous 2024 campaign. 'The Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections," said Michael Waldman, CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "Presidents have no lawful role.' But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Aug. 19 that Trump would work with lawmakers to end mail-in voting because "this is a priority for the president." Here's what you need to know: How popular is mail-in voting? Mail-in voting is widespread and popular. Out of 155 million votes cast in 2024, nearly 47 million were mailed in, according to the Election Assistance Commission. Most states allow absentee voting for no reason, but some states require an excuse to avoid showing up in person. Eight states and Washington, DC, allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state mail ballots to all registered voters. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said vote-by-mail elections are secure, accurate and honest. 'If he actually understood or cared about the American people, he'd know mail-in-voting is the best way to protect everyone's right to vote, especially rural folks, elderly people and hourly workers,' Read said. 'Mail-in-voting meets citizens exactly where they are: in their living rooms and around their kitchen tables.' Trump seeks to end mail-in voting Trump said Aug. 18 he would sign an executive order to abolish mail-in voting, which he slammed as vulnerable to fraud. Trump has long complained about absentee voting, since before the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down many in-person events. 'We're going to end mail-in voting," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "It's a fraud." Trump's announcement came while special House races are pending in Arizona and Tennessee; New Jersey and Virginia will be choosing governors in November this year; and some big-city mayors will be chosen in New York and elsewhere. The whole country will be voting on House races and one-third of the Senate 2026, and for president in 2028. Despite Trump's claims, election experts said voting is the most secure in history. "As we have said repeatedly, our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free and fair elections for the American people," Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said after the 2024 election. David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, which works with election officials of both parties to ensure secure elections, said ballots are the most verifiable and recountable in history with only Louisiana not voting on paper. Audits confirm the results, he said. And Congress approved ID requirements to register to vote in the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which followed the razor-thin victory of President George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Trump, Democrats expect political fight over mail-in ballots Trump argued the 2020 presidential result was rigged after what his aides called a "red mirage" of an Election Day lead disappeared as mail-in ballots were counted and Joe Biden won the White House. "I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS," Trump said in a social media post Aug. 18 advocating an end to mail-in voting. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans supported mail-in voting to avoid handing Democrats an advantage even as Trump occasionally criticized them. But the GOP sought an Election Day deadline for mailed ballots to be counted. Leavitt said the White House will work with lawmakers at federal and state levels to change the law. 'When the Congress comes back to Washington, I'm sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state Legislatures across the country to ensure we're protecting the integrity of the vote for the American people," Leavitt said. But Democrats vowed to fight Trump efforts to undermine mail-in voting. While Republicans in the House could potentially approve a bill, it would face a steep challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority. 'Senate Democrats will make sure that any and every measure that would make it even more difficult for Americans to vote will be dead on arrival in the Senate and will continue to fight to protect our democracy," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York. Experts: States control election rules, not presidents The Constitution unambiguously says states regulate elections and only Congress can change that, Becker said. 'Getting rid of mail voting, which has been around since at least the U.S. Civil War, and which is offered by the vast majority of states, red and blue, is an incredibly bad idea that would make our elections much less secure and vulnerable to interference,' said Becker, a former election lawyer at the Justice Department. 'He has zero power to change election policy with the swipe of the pen, as the founders expressly stated.' Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Trump "has no constitutional authority to end mail voting by executive order." "The Framers of the U.S. Constitution took care to keep the main responsibility for administering elections with the states and localities, which are in no way mere 'agents' of federal authorities," Olson said. Advocacy groups expect lawsuits if Trump moves against mail-in voting Federal courts have repeatedly recognized the state role in elections, including when a judge largley blocked Trump's March executive order dealing with elections. In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of President Barack Obama, blocked parts of Trump's order that sought to require voters to prove they are citizens and to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots after Election Day. Trump is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," Casper wrote. Advocacy groups said getting rid of mail-in voting could discourage millions of people who appreciate the flexiblity of avoiding voting in person on Election Day. "Many veterans, grappling with service-related disabilities like mobility impairments or PTSD, rely on this accessible method to vote independently and privately from home, avoiding the physical and emotional toll of in-person polling," said Naveed Shah, political director for Common Defense, a group representing military veterans and their families. Advocates from several groups expected lawsuits to challenge any Trump order seeking to abolish mail-in voting. 'We are prepared to protect mail-in voting in court against unfounded and unconstitutional attacks, as we have in Pennsylvania, Mississippi and other states,' said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project. 'Access to mail-in voting is necessary to a fair and inclusive electoral process.'

Colorado official: Trump ‘taking cues about democracy' from Putin
Colorado official: Trump ‘taking cues about democracy' from Putin

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Colorado official: Trump ‘taking cues about democracy' from Putin

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) said Tuesday that President Trump is 'taking cues about democracy' from Russian President Vladimir Putin after Trump announced Monday he was planning to sign an executive order to get rid of mail-in ballots. 'Look, mail ballots are secure,' Griswold said on 'CNN News Central.' 'They cannot be hacked because they're a piece of paper. That is increasingly more important as Trump has made our elections less secure since taking office again.' 'He's disbanded much of the federal government's work on countering foreign disinformation and is obviously taking cues about democracy from a dictator, Putin,' she added in an interview with CNN's Kate Bolduan. 'And more than that, Kate, Trump himself knows that mail ballots are safe.' Her comments come just five days after Trump met with his Russian counterpart in Alaska about the over three-years long war in Ukraine. The Colorado official's remarks also follow a Monday Truth Social post in which Trump reemphasized his long-standing distaste of mail-in voting, saying other countries have dropped the practice 'because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED.' 'I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election,' Trump wrote. 'WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,' the president added. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store