logo
A Rising Democratic Star Just Became a New Anti–Death Penalty Hero

A Rising Democratic Star Just Became a New Anti–Death Penalty Hero

Yahoo19-07-2025
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
When the history of America's long journey toward the abolition of capital punishment is written, it will be studded with the names of people who, in their time, took little-noticed decisions to oppose the death penalty. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear will likely be one of those people.
Beshear, a rising star in the Democratic Party, is not a prominent and outspoken abolitionist. In fact, during an October 2023 gubernatorial debate with his Republican opponent, Beshear explained that there are 'some crimes so terrible and some people so dangerous that I do believe this law needs to continue to be on the books.'
With statements like that, Beshear certainly does not sound like a candidate for the abolitionist Hall of Fame. But consider what he did late last month, when he refused to authorize the execution of Ralph Baze, who was convicted of murdering two police officers and would later be the lead plaintiff in an unsuccessful constitutional challenge to lethal injection.
Beshear's refusal was enormously significant in forestalling a real step backward for the abolitionist movement.
And, while it is by no means the death penalty capital of the United States, the fate of capital punishment may be determined in places like Kentucky, places I call death penalty 'swing states,' and not just in states with many executions like Texas, Oklahoma, or Alabama.
A death penalty swing state is one in which the death penalty remains an authorized punishment, but in which executions seldom occur and death sentences are seldom handed down. As the Death Penalty Information Center notes, 'Although the United States is con­sid­ered a death penal­ty coun­try, exe­cu­tions are rare or non-exis­tent in most of the nation.'
Right now, there are 10 death penalty states in which no one has been executed in the past 10 years. Kentucky is one of those states, along with California, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Three other death penalty states—Arkansas, Nebraska, and Ohio—have not carried out an execution in the past five years.
The reasons why states retain the death penalty but don't use it are quite varied. Some states stop executing because of the difficulty of obtaining the drugs needed to carry out lethal injection or problems they've encountered in the administration of capital punishment. In other states, governors have declared a moratorium on executions.
Still others seem disinclined to go forward with executions but have not mustered the political momentum to take the death penalty off the books. For example, Kansas has not executed anyone in almost 50 years; Wyoming has not done so since 1992.
Kentucky carried out its last execution in November 2008 when Marco Allen Chapman was put to death for the gruesome murder of two children and the rape of their mother. All told, the Bluegrass State has executed only three people in the past half-century.
Its death penalty history dates back to 1780, before it was granted statehood, when it carried out its first judicially authorized execution. Since then, Kentucky has gone on to set the record for the most exe­cu­tions in a sin­gle day. On July 13, 1928, it used the electric chair to put seven men to death, one after the other.
Eight years later, it was the site of this nation's last public execution.
In 1998, though, the state became the first to enact a Racial Justice Act. That act authorizes judges in capital cases to consider whether racial bias played a role in any decision to seek, or impose, the death penalty. Kentucky has not carried out an execution in more than a decade because of problems with its lethal injection protocol and various legal challenges to it. The DPIC reports that 'in 2006, death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers filed a law­suit alleg­ing the exe­cu­tion pro­to­col had not fol­lowed the prop­er admin­is­tra­tive rule­mak­ing process.' Since then, legal challenges have focused on the state's 'fail­ure to pro­vide a sin­gle-drug lethal injec­tion option, inad­e­quate pro­tec­tions against exe­cut­ing peo­ple with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty, and inad­e­quate pro­tec­tions against exe­cut­ing those con­sid­ered insane.'
In 2019, a judge found the state's exe­cu­tion pro­to­col ​to be 'unconstitutional and invalid,' and issued an injunction. But that did not stop Kentucky's Republican Attorney General Russell Coleman from calling on the governor last month to set an execution date for Baze.
Coleman has been fighting to restart executions since he took office. His request put the progressive governor in a difficult spot in deep-red Kentucky.
But Beshear held firm and kept his state in the group of death penalty swing states. He told the AG that he would not authorize Baze's execution because of continuing problems and unresolved legal issues with the state's execution protocol. As recently as April of this year, a Kentucky trial judge found that the state still had not fixed those problems.
In response to Coleman's request, the governor would not jump the gun just to score political points. He pointed out that Kentucky 'does not currently have, nor can it obtain, the drugs necessary to carry out lethal injection executions.'
So, Kentucky remains a place with 25 men on death row. The last death sentence handed down in the state was in 2014.
States that move from the group that has not executed anyone in a long time to actually executing set an unfortunate example for other swing states that may encourage them to follow suit. We know that imitation is an important mechanism for the spread of policies or state actions, and this is as true in the realm of the death penalty as in any other area.
As I wrote previously, 'Political leaders in one place scan the horizon looking to other places to see [what is happening] and to learn what works and what doesn't. The federal system provides the framework within which this learning and borrowing can occur.'
That neighboring Indiana recently broke from the group of death penalty swing states after having not carried out an execution in 15 years makes Beshear's refusal to issue a death warrant all the more significant. It helps avoid a kind of domino effect involving other swing states, including Ohio to the north and Pennsylvania to the northeast.
Beshear is an example of a political leader for whom the abstract belief that some people may deserve death as a punishment for their crimes gives way to a realistic assessment of the way the death penalty works, or does not work, in practice. It is that assessment that has fueled the substantial progress that abolitionists have made in changing the national conversation about capital punishment.
For his refusal to let Kentucky restart what the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun once called 'the machinery of death' and for the political courage it took to do that, Andy Beshear may rightly be called an anti–death penalty hero.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kamala Harris Tells Stephen Colbert She's Not Running for CA Governor Because the Political System Is ‘Broken'
Kamala Harris Tells Stephen Colbert She's Not Running for CA Governor Because the Political System Is ‘Broken'

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Kamala Harris Tells Stephen Colbert She's Not Running for CA Governor Because the Political System Is ‘Broken'

'I'm always going to be part of the fight,' the former VP says, warning that American institutions are "not as strong as they need to be" against Trump Kamala Harris had a somewhat bleak assessment of the situation in America during her appearance Thursday night on 'The Late Show,' telling host Stephen Colbert that she isn't running for California governor because because America's political system is 'broken.' The former Vice President — and the 2024 Democratic nominee for President — appeared on the show for her first interview since the election, where in addition to explaining why she won't try to replace Gavin Newsom she also warned that American institutions aren't 'as strong as they need to be' against Trump. Though she did insist 'I'm always going to be part of the fight.' More from TheWrap Kamala Harris Tells Stephen Colbert She's Not Running for CA Governor Because the Political System Is 'Broken' | Video 'Project Runway' Revamp: How the Fashion Series Infused Comedy and Spectacle in Move to Disney 'Chief of War' Review: Jason Momoa Turns Hawaiian Folklore Into an Ambitious TV Epic That Rivals 'Game of Thrones' Richard Quest Burns Scott Jennings on CNN Over Trump Tariffs Spat, Says He's Not a Real Journalist | Video Watch her comments in a preview clip, released ahead of the episode's full broadcast, below: The clip began with Colbert noting that Harris beat every other candidate by double digits,' in early polling and yet will not run for California's top job. 'Why are you sitting this out? Are you saving yourself for a different office that might be–' Harris denied she's saving herself for 2028 — though she didn't rule out a presidential run, instead sticking to the present moment. 'No, no, obviously people project, and honestly, it's more, perhaps basic than that. I am, listen. I am a devout public servant. I have spent my entire career in service of the people. And I thought a lot about running for governor,' she said. 'I love my state. I love California.' Recounting her career, Harris, told Colbert that early in her career, 'I had to defend my decision to become a prosecutor with my family. And one of the points that I made is, why is it, then, when we think we want to improve the system or change it, that we're always on the outside, on bended knee or trying to break down the door? Shouldn't we also be inside the system? And that has been my career.' However, she continued, 'I made the decision that I, just for now, I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken.' 'I think it's there's so much. I mean, there are so many good people who are public servants who do such good work, teachers and firefighters and police officers and nurses and scientists, scientists,' Harris added. 'And so it's not about them, but, you know, I believe, and I always believed that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles.' You could almost feel the 'but' coming, and it did, with Harris continuing, 'I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be, and I just don't want it for now. I don't want to go back and go back in the system. I want to travel the country. I want to listen to people. I want to talk with people, and I don't want it to be transactional.' Colbert replied that to hear Harris 'say that it's broken, to hear you say that our systems aren't strong enough. Is harrowing.' 'Well, but it's also evident, isn't it?' Harris countered, adding, 'it doesn't mean we give up. That's not my point, okay? Because that's what I'm hearing. Like, you don't want to be part No, oh, absolutely not. I'm always going to be part of the fight.' The post Kamala Harris Tells Stephen Colbert She's Not Running for CA Governor Because the Political System Is 'Broken' | Video appeared first on TheWrap. Solve the daily Crossword

Trump's super PAC raises a massive $177 million, bolstering his political influence
Trump's super PAC raises a massive $177 million, bolstering his political influence

NBC News

timean hour ago

  • NBC News

Trump's super PAC raises a massive $177 million, bolstering his political influence

The super PAC affiliated with President Donald Trump's raised $177 million in the first half of 2025, new fundraising reports show — with GOP megadonors, key Trump allies (including some government officials), big business, a secret-money group and a family member of a person who received a presidential pardon among those filling the group's coffers ahead of next year's midterms. Even in an era of overflowing money in politics, the massive sum sticks out. It is a sign that Trump's political operation will continue to wield major influence even though Trump himself is barred by term limits from running for president again. The group spent just $4.6 million over that time, meaning it has more than $196 million banked away as Trump continues to put his stamp on the Republican Party and looks to keep Congress in GOP control in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump also has yet more money nestled away in other committees he can use for various political causes. The list of MAGA Inc. donors included Elizabeth Fago of Florida, who made a donation of $1 million on April 3. Nursing home executive Paul Walczak, Fago's son, received a pardon from Trump on April 23 after pleading guilty to tax crimes months earlier. According to The New York Times, Walczak's pardon application highlighted Fago's political activity, and Fago attended a pricey fundraiser for the Trump super PAC shortly before Walczak received a pardon. Fago's $1 million donation exceeds all of her previous individual donations to GOP campaigns combined, according to Federal Election Commission records. Billionaire GOP megadonor Jeff Yass, who donated $16 million to the group, was the Trump super PAC's top donor. After sending MAGA Inc. $1 million days before Trump's inauguration, Yass gave another $15 million in early March. His trading firm holds a significant stake in the parent company of the Chinese social media giant TikTok, and Trump has repeatedly delayed implementing legislation banning the app in America until it could be sold to an American owner. The second-largest donation in the new report, $13.75 million, came from a nonprofit group called Securing American Greatness, Inc. The nonprofit popped up in 2024 and ran ads on Trump's behalf ahead of last year's election, and it doesn't have to publicly disclose its donors. Kelcy Warren, the head of energy company Energy Transfer LP, gave the Trump super PAC another $12.5 million, while cryptocurrency firms Foris DAX and gave $10 million and $5 million, respectively. Elon Musk also chipped in $5 million to MAGA Inc. on June 27, when he also gave the same amounts to the main Republican super PACs involved in House and Senate races. Musk spent heavily to help Trump win in 2024 and joined his White House. But just weeks before his donation to the pro-Trump group, Musk left the White House while criticizing Trump's signature tax cuts and spending bill and while attacking the president for his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Kelly Loeffler, who is now a member of Trump's Cabinet as head of the Small Business Administration, gave $2.5 million to MAGA Inc. on June 25. Her husband, Intercontinental Exchange CEO Jeffrey Sprecher, gave another $2.5 million. Jared Isaacman, the billionaire entrepreneur Trump tapped to lead NASA before pulling his nomination in early June, gave the group $1 million on the final day of June. And Warren Stephens, the Arkansas-based businessman whom Trump tapped as his ambassador to the United Kingdom, gave $1 million. Other prominent donors include: Venture capitalists Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreesen, who each gave $3 million. Ronald Lauder, an heir to the Estée Lauder cosmetics and pro-Israel activist, who gave $5 million. Billionaire businessman Timothy Mellon, who gave almost $2 million. Lynsi Snyder-Ellingson, the president of In-N-Out Burger, who gave $2 million. William Ford, an investment CEO who also serves on the board of TikTok parent company ByteDance, who gave $1.25 million. Antonio Gracias, a private equity CEO who served in a high-ranking, volunteer role with Trump's "Department of Government Efficiency," who gave $1 million. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who gave $1 million. early Bitcoin investors, who each gave about $500,000.

Trump goes after Susan Collins for her voting record
Trump goes after Susan Collins for her voting record

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Trump goes after Susan Collins for her voting record

The simmering dispute over the FBI's future headquarters derailed Senate efforts Thursday night to launch floor debate on the legislation that funds the agency, as well as the departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA and science programs. Sen. Chris Van Hollen objected Thursday night to including the bill in a larger package of funding measures. The Maryland Democrat demanded that the Senate agree to adopt language that would require the FBI to meet a specific security threshold for its headquarters, as the Trump administration keeps the agency in downtown Washington instead of relocating it to the suburban Maryland campus previously selected after a yearslong competition. But Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), who chairs the funding panel that handles the bill, shot down that request on the Senate floor Thursday night, after the dispute over the FBI headquarters already snagged committee action on the bill. Tearing up as he spoke on the floor, Moran said he knows 'no path forward' that would allow Van Hollen's amendment. 'Our appropriations process is fragile,' he said. If Van Hollen, who serves as the ranking member on the Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, hadn't objected, his amendment would have been teed up for a vote. But Van Hollen didn't want to take the risk that the language would not have been adopted. 'That is a simple request that I would have thought all of us could stand behind,' Van Hollen said, 'making sure that the new headquarters of the men and women of the FBI meets the security requirements that we and they have set out.' Senate appropriators already killed another amendment Van Hollen proposed in committee, which would have barred the Trump administration from dipping into a $1.4 billion construction account for anything besides relocating the FBI to the previously selected site. After the proposal was initially adopted, the committee later voted to strike the language because so many Republicans were threatening to tank the underlying bill if it rebuked Trump on the headquarters decision. 'We did it because the president of the United States was going to throw a fit if that provision stayed on, that's why people reversed the position,' Van Hollen said on the Senate floor Thursday night. 'And we shouldn't make our decisions out of fear about what somebody in the White House is going to do, because that distorts the entire process here in the United States Senate.' Moran's Thursday evening request was to tie together four bills to fund the government for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Those bills would collectively fund the departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture, as well as military construction projects, the operations of Congress and the FDA. The Kansas Republican touted that those four measures had made it through the full Senate Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support and 'in some instances, unanimously.'

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