vox--2020-06-03--Why cops can violate your constitutional rights and suffer no consequences in court

Share All sharing options for : Why cops can violate your constitutional rights and suffer no consequences in court Police approached West because they believed her ex-boyfriend , who had an outstanding felony arrest warrant , was inside her home .
( He wasn ’ t . )
West gave the police permission to enter her home — an important fact because it meant that police could enter without a warrant — and lent an officer her key .
But West did not expect the police to smash her windows .
Or to fire so much tear gas into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made the house unlivable for two months .
Or to fire tear gas canisters at such velocity that her walls and ceilings suffered extensive damage .
The city gave her only $ 900 to cover her losses , plus a hotel room for three weeks .
And yet , when West sued , a federal appeals court determined that her lawsuit was dead on arrival .
The culprit was qualified immunity , a doctrine that gives government officials broad — if not entirely limitless — protection against federal lawsuits .
The unusual lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny in the wake of nationwide protests inspired by the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer .
One lawmaker , Rep. Justin Amash ( I-MI ) , has even proposed legislation that would abolish qualified immunity altogether .
In theory , qualified immunity shields government officials from lawsuits involving novel legal claims .
As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald ( 1982 ) , “ government officials performing discretionary functions , generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable person would have known.
” In practice , however , qualified immunity can protect truly egregious conduct by police .
As the Supreme Court put it in Malley v. Briggs ( 1986 ) , qualified immunity “ provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.
” In West ’ s lawsuit , West v. City of Caldwell , two members of a three-judge panel determined that the officers who trashed West ’ s home are entitled to qualified immunity — because there was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeowner gives police consent to enter their house , that consent does not entitle police to smash windows or to fire chemical weapons into the home .
To prevail in her case , the Court reasoned , West would have to produce a binding precedent establishing “ a constitutional rule specific enough to alert these deputies in this case that their particular conduct was unlawful ” ( emphasis in original ) .
The premise of the Supreme Court ’ s qualified immunity cases is that government officials will do their jobs less efficiently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a lawsuit looms over them .
As the Court explained in Harlow , qualified immunity does not simply protect public employees from the “ expenses of litigation.
” It ensures that the stresses of litigation won ’ t divert “ official energy from pressing public issues , ” and that concerns about being sued won ’ t deter “ able citizens from acceptance of public office.
” Finally , the Supreme Court also warned about “ the danger that fear of being sued will ‘ dampen the ardor of all but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ public officials ] , in the unflinching discharge of their duties.
’ ” These are not frivolous concerns .
Qualified immunity applies broadly to government officials , not simply to police officers .
So , in a world without qualified immunity , religious conservatives could harass civil rights officials with lawsuits to discourage those officials from enforcing laws prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination .
Koch Industries could bombard EPA officials with lawsuits discouraging them from enforcing environmental laws .
And as the Supreme Court lurches right , government employees could not be certain that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices — even if existing precedents clearly establish that those actions are lawful .
Public employees could face financial ruin every time the Supreme Court overruled a precedent .
Yet whatever the wisdom of providing some lawsuit immunity to most public employees , most government officials do not have guns .
Teachers and firefighters — or , for that matter , civil rights commissioners and EPA officials — typically do not smash the windows of an innocent woman ’ s home and saturate the interior with tear gas .
It ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally be able to do their jobs without having to fear an onslaught of lawsuits .
It ’ s another thing entirely to give sweeping legal immunity to people who are authorized by the state to inflict violence on citizens , and potentially even to take another person ’ s life .
The primary purpose of qualified immunity is to ensure that public officials do not face expensive litigation when the legality of their actions is uncertain .
Qualified immunity is not a complete shield against liability .
It only protects government employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
” For several years , this meant that the first government official to violate the law in a new or innovative way typically got off scot-free , but subsequent officials could then be placed on notice that they better not engage in similar behavior .
In Saucier v. Katz ( 2001 ) , the Supreme Court held that judges hearing qualified immunity cases must conduct a two-step inquiry .
Courts must first ask whether “ the facts alleged show the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right.
” Then , after determining whether the defendant violated the law , the court would determine whether that defendant was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of their actions was not “ clearly established.
” Thus , as time passed , courts would declare more and more conduct illegal , and government officials would then be on notice that they could not emulate that conduct .
But the Court largely abandoned this two-step framework in Pearson v. Callahan ( 2009 ) , which held that “ while the sequence set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate , it should no longer be regarded as mandatory.
” Thus , judges now have the power to dispose of cases on qualified immunity grounds without ever ruling on whether anyone ’ s rights were violated .
As a recent Reuters investigation notes , moreover , judges are increasingly likely to declare government officials immune from a suit without resolving whether those officials acted illegally .
Government officials also enjoy extraordinary procedural protections in qualified immunity cases .
As attorney Raffi Melkonian notes on Twitter , in qualified immunity cases , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , appeal to the Court of Appeals ” if they are denied qualified immunity by a federal trial court .
Moreover , civil procedure rules often allow a defendant to raise qualified immunity at two different phases of a trial court proceeding — and if the court denies qualified immunity at each phase , both denials can be immediately appealed .
According to Melkonian , that means that , even in the best-case scenario , if you are a plaintiff suing a government official “ you have 2-3 years of appellate procedure in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case.
” That ’ s a long time to wait for a judgment , and it discourages many lawyers from taking these cases — because they are unlikely to win , even less likely to win quickly , and will have to invest considerable resources into these lawsuits before they have any real shot of getting paid .
And then let ’ s say that a victim of police violence does ultimately prevail in a suit against a police officer .
Even then , the likelihood that the officer will be required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many jurisdictions have indemnity laws , providing that the government will pay for any damages awarded against a police officer .
These laws are so common that a 2014 study by UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that “ during the study period , governments paid approximately 99.98 % of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement.
” There may be bipartisan opposition building to qualified immunity .
Conservatives have dominated the Supreme Court since President Richard Nixon appointed four justices in his first term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed dramatically over the past half-decade .
For much of this period , judicial conservatism was typically associated with deference to governmental power — and especially with deference to law enforcement .
As Nixon wrote in 1967 , “ the first responsibility of government and a primary responsibility of the judicial system is to guarantee to each citizen his primary civil right — the right to be protected from domestic violence.
” In recent years , however , judicial conservatism has taken on a more libertarian tone .
That doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of civil liberties for criminal defendants , but it does mean that several members of the Court ’ s Republican majority are protective of some of those liberties .
Chief Justice John Roberts , for example , often votes with his liberal colleagues in cases where police use new technology to conduct intrusive searches .
Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch wrote the lead opinion in a case holding that criminal defendants may only be convicted by a unanimous jury .
And Trump ’ s other appointee , Justice Brett Kavanaugh , is a longstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even authored a law review note on that topic while he was still a student .
Meanwhile , Justice Clarence Thomas , the Court ’ s most conservative member , wrote in a 2017 opinion that his Court should “ reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.
” Thomas ’ s partial concurring opinion in Ziglar v. Abbasi ( 2017 ) is brief , and it is vague .
The thrust of Thomas ’ s argument is that , when determining whether a government official should be immune from a particular suit , courts should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that existed more than a century ago , rather than the practical concerns raised in Harlow .
Does that mean that Thomas would join a five-justice majority in limiting qualified immunity ?
The answer to that question is unclear , but many litigants appear ready to test whether a majority of the Court is willing to rethink qualified immunity .
As many as a dozen cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court asking it to rein in the broad immunity currently afforded to government officials .
One of those cases is Shaniz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now called West v. Winfield .
The justices , moreover , have discussed whether to hear West ’ s case at six separate conferences — a sign that at least some members of the Court have taken an interest in the case .
Meanwhile , Rep. Amash , a former Republican with right-libertarian views , is seeking co-sponsors for legislation titled the Ending Qualified Immunity Act , which he says would “ eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans ’ ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights.
” That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely go far beyond any limits that the Supreme Court would place on qualified immunity .
And it not at all clear whether a majority of the House and the Senate would ever be willing to go so far .
Nevertheless , even if Congress does not ultimately decide to eliminate qualified immunity altogether , qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that isn ’ t grounded in the Constitution — which means that Congress has the power to alter that doctrine however it chooses .
Congress could , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other government official who carries a deadly weapon — should not enjoy the same broad immunity afforded to teachers , firefighters , or EPA officials .
It could ensure that , at the very least , police who kill , or wreck lives , or destroy people ’ s homes are not immune from suit .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

A SWAT team ruined Shaniz West’s house.
Police approached West because they believed her ex-boyfriend, who had an outstanding felony arrest warrant, was inside her home. (He wasn’t.) West gave the police permission to enter her home — an important fact because it meant that police could enter without a warrant — and lent an officer her key.
But West did not expect the police to smash her windows. Or to fire so much tear gas into the home that it saturated her possessions and made the house unlivable for two months. Or to fire tear gas canisters at such velocity that her walls and ceilings suffered extensive damage. The city gave her only $900 to cover her losses, plus a hotel room for three weeks.
And yet, when West sued, a federal appeals court determined that her lawsuit was dead on arrival. The culprit was qualified immunity, a doctrine that gives government officials broad — if not entirely limitless — protection against federal lawsuits.
The unusual lawsuit immunity enjoyed by police is under increased scrutiny in the wake of nationwide protests inspired by the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. One lawmaker, Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), has even proposed legislation that would abolish qualified immunity altogether.
In theory, qualified immunity shields government officials from lawsuits involving novel legal claims. As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
In practice, however, qualified immunity can protect truly egregious conduct by police. As the Supreme Court put it in Malley v. Briggs (1986), qualified immunity “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”
In West’s lawsuit, West v. City of Caldwell, two members of a three-judge panel determined that the officers who trashed West’s home are entitled to qualified immunity — because there was no previous case specifically holding that when a homeowner gives police consent to enter their house, that consent does not entitle police to smash windows or to fire chemical weapons into the home.
To prevail in her case, the Court reasoned, West would have to produce a binding precedent establishing “a constitutional rule specific enough to alert these deputies in this case that their particular conduct was unlawful” (emphasis in original).
Why does qualified immunity exist?
The premise of the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity cases is that government officials will do their jobs less efficiently and with less enthusiasm if the threat of a lawsuit looms over them.
As the Court explained in Harlow, qualified immunity does not simply protect public employees from the “expenses of litigation.” It ensures that the stresses of litigation won’t divert “official energy from pressing public issues,” and that concerns about being sued won’t deter “able citizens from acceptance of public office.” Finally, the Supreme Court also warned about “the danger that fear of being sued will ‘dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties.’”
These are not frivolous concerns. Qualified immunity applies broadly to government officials, not simply to police officers. So, in a world without qualified immunity, religious conservatives could harass civil rights officials with lawsuits to discourage those officials from enforcing laws prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Koch Industries could bombard EPA officials with lawsuits discouraging them from enforcing environmental laws.
And as the Supreme Court lurches right, government employees could not be certain that their actions would be upheld by the justices — even if existing precedents clearly establish that those actions are lawful. Public employees could face financial ruin every time the Supreme Court overruled a precedent.
Yet whatever the wisdom of providing some lawsuit immunity to most public employees, most government officials do not have guns. Teachers and firefighters — or, for that matter, civil rights commissioners and EPA officials — typically do not smash the windows of an innocent woman’s home and saturate the interior with tear gas.
It’s one thing to say that public employees should generally be able to do their jobs without having to fear an onslaught of lawsuits. It’s another thing entirely to give sweeping legal immunity to people who are authorized by the state to inflict violence on citizens, and potentially even to take another person’s life.
How qualified immunity works in practice
The primary purpose of qualified immunity is to ensure that public officials do not face expensive litigation when the legality of their actions is uncertain. Qualified immunity is not a complete shield against liability. It only protects government employees whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
For several years, this meant that the first government official to violate the law in a new or innovative way typically got off scot-free, but subsequent officials could then be placed on notice that they better not engage in similar behavior. In Saucier v. Katz (2001), the Supreme Court held that judges hearing qualified immunity cases must conduct a two-step inquiry.
Courts must first ask whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Then, after determining whether the defendant violated the law, the court would determine whether that defendant was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of their actions was not “clearly established.”
Thus, as time passed, courts would declare more and more conduct illegal, and government officials would then be on notice that they could not emulate that conduct.
But the Court largely abandoned this two-step framework in Pearson v. Callahan (2009), which held that “while the sequence set forth [in Saucier] is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory.” Thus, judges now have the power to dispose of cases on qualified immunity grounds without ever ruling on whether anyone’s rights were violated. As a recent Reuters investigation notes, moreover, judges are increasingly likely to declare government officials immune from a suit without resolving whether those officials acted illegally.
Government officials also enjoy extraordinary procedural protections in qualified immunity cases. As attorney Raffi Melkonian notes on Twitter, in qualified immunity cases, “the defendant gets an automatic, immediate, appeal to the Court of Appeals” if they are denied qualified immunity by a federal trial court. Moreover, civil procedure rules often allow a defendant to raise qualified immunity at two different phases of a trial court proceeding — and if the court denies qualified immunity at each phase, both denials can be immediately appealed.
According to Melkonian, that means that, even in the best-case scenario, if you are a plaintiff suing a government official “you have 2-3 years of appellate procedure in every single case even before you win the case.” That’s a long time to wait for a judgment, and it discourages many lawyers from taking these cases — because they are unlikely to win, even less likely to win quickly, and will have to invest considerable resources into these lawsuits before they have any real shot of getting paid.
And then let’s say that a victim of police violence does ultimately prevail in a suit against a police officer. Even then, the likelihood that the officer will be required to compensate the victim is negligible. Many jurisdictions have indemnity laws, providing that the government will pay for any damages awarded against a police officer. These laws are so common that a 2014 study by UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that “during the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement.”
There may be bipartisan opposition building to qualified immunity.
Conservatives have dominated the Supreme Court since President Richard Nixon appointed four justices in his first term. But the nature of judicial conservatism has changed dramatically over the past half-decade.
For much of this period, judicial conservatism was typically associated with deference to governmental power — and especially with deference to law enforcement. As Nixon wrote in 1967, “the first responsibility of government and a primary responsibility of the judicial system is to guarantee to each citizen his primary civil right — the right to be protected from domestic violence.”
In recent years, however, judicial conservatism has taken on a more libertarian tone. That doesn’t mean that the Roberts Court is a bastion of civil liberties for criminal defendants, but it does mean that several members of the Court’s Republican majority are protective of some of those liberties.
Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, often votes with his liberal colleagues in cases where police use new technology to conduct intrusive searches. Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch wrote the lead opinion in a case holding that criminal defendants may only be convicted by a unanimous jury. And Trump’s other appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is a longstanding opponent of racial jury discrimination — he even authored a law review note on that topic while he was still a student.
Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court’s most conservative member, wrote in a 2017 opinion that his Court should “reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.”
Thomas’s partial concurring opinion in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) is brief, and it is vague. The thrust of Thomas’s argument is that, when determining whether a government official should be immune from a particular suit, courts should rely on “common law” principles that existed more than a century ago, rather than the practical concerns raised in Harlow.
Does that mean that Thomas would join a five-justice majority in limiting qualified immunity? The answer to that question is unclear, but many litigants appear ready to test whether a majority of the Court is willing to rethink qualified immunity.
As many as a dozen cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court asking it to rein in the broad immunity currently afforded to government officials. One of those cases is Shaniz West’s case, which is now called West v. Winfield. The justices, moreover, have discussed whether to hear West’s case at six separate conferences — a sign that at least some members of the Court have taken an interest in the case.
Meanwhile, Rep. Amash, a former Republican with right-libertarian views, is seeking co-sponsors for legislation titled the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, which he says would “eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans’ ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights.”
That would be a bold step, which would likely go far beyond any limits that the Supreme Court would place on qualified immunity. And it not at all clear whether a majority of the House and the Senate would ever be willing to go so far.
Nevertheless, even if Congress does not ultimately decide to eliminate qualified immunity altogether, qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that isn’t grounded in the Constitution — which means that Congress has the power to alter that doctrine however it chooses. Congress could, for example, decide that law enforcement officers — or any other government official who carries a deadly weapon — should not enjoy the same broad immunity afforded to teachers, firefighters, or EPA officials.
It could ensure that, at the very least, police who kill, or wreck lives, or destroy people’s homes are not immune from suit.


vox--2020-06-03--The trope of “outside agitators” at protests, explained

To hear some people — including public officials — tell it , “ outside agitators ” have been playing an active role in protests over police brutality .
“ Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda , ” Attorney General Bill Barr said in a statement .
“ They are coming in largely from outside of the city , from outside of the region , to prey on everything we have built over the last several decades , ” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey noted .
( Minnesota officials later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) It ’ s a statement that activists have heard before , used throughout history to undermine the legitimacy of protests .
By framing protests as the result of “ outside ” influence , lawmakers are able to undercut the validity of the protest itself and question activists ’ capacity for organizing such a large-scale movement .
At the same time , they ’ re able to maintain that they actually support activists ’ broader cause of combatting police violence , while cracking down on protesters .
“ The idea [ behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s formidable really couldn ’ t be pulled off by local black activists or protesters , ” Howard University law professor Justin Hansford told Vox .
The term is one that he is very familiar with : Hansford was an activist during the Ferguson , Missouri , protests in 2014 and now he runs the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard .
“ In Ferguson , ” he said , “ it was the same situation : it ’ s an effective tool because not only do you delegitimize the protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists as not being skillful enough , or clever enough , to do this on their own .
You play on racial tropes as well.
” It can be complicated , Hansford notes , as there are some groups and individuals who are trying to capitalize on these protests to sow chaos of their own .
There have been reports , for example , of white supremacist groups taking advantage of these protests to try to impair the cause .
But Hansford characterizes these organizations as “ infiltrators , ” not “ outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a key distinction : “ Infiltrators ” are organizations he describes as working to undermine the protest , while “ outside agitators ” are ( in theory ) given credit for amplifying it .
Other actors who ’ ve been a disruptive presence at the protest , like individuals who ’ ve taken advantage of this moment to loot stores , and YouTube influencers who ’ ve been among crowds damaging property , would not be considered “ outside agitators.
” Hansford broke down the long history of the term “ outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the civil rights movement in the 1960s and as far back as the 1800s — in an interview with Vox .
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity .
Could you start by talking about what the term “ outside agitator ” means , when it ’ s used in the context of the current protests ?
Outside agitator is a racial term .
The term means that protests are somehow less legitimate and really run by people who are , not black , usually white people , who are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the country or different parts of the world .
You may have seen people talk about Russian influence recently , fomenting this discussion .
There ’ s another group they mention , which is seen as a predominately white organization .
All these groups are , whether it ’ s Russia , whether it ’ s antifa , the idea is that anything that ’ s formidable really couldn ’ t be pulled off by local black activists or protesters .
That ’ s actually the bottom line .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ that was raised ] was George Soros .
There ’ s an idea that these were paid protesters , it ’ s not legitimate , they are being paid to protest .
Fox News was involved in promulgating that misnomer .
I used to tell people — back then , if people were getting paid checks , I was wondering where my check was , because I never got a check .
Nobody I know received a check .
In Ferguson , it was the same situation : it ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegitimize the protest itself , but you also delegitimize the activists as not being skillful enough , or clever enough , to do this on their own .
You play on racial tropes as well .
Hostility toward the protesting can be justified easier .
Legitimate protesting based on a legitimate problem : being hostile toward it would make you seem like a racist .
This gives you grounds for being hostile toward the protest in a way you can justify it .
In the history , most people will first think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was said to have been influenced by communists : In the aftermath of the ’ 50s , the McCarthy hearings , being a communist was a really harsh character assassination .
Sheriffs and segregationists throughout the South said that Dr. King was being influenced by , again , white , foreign , outside agitators , who were the ones behind the fomenting .
So if it wasn ’ t for those outside agitators , black people could not pull off such a formidable protest .
That was the other big parallel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
It does go back to even during the [ anti-slavery ] movement : If there was ever any disruptions , or even rebellions , it was the same thing .
The trope was just more explicit at that point : “ Black people couldn ’ t pull this off themselves , it must be some people from the North.
” So even then , from slavery up through segregation , the outside agitator could be in the Communist concepts in the ’ 50s , ’ 60s , could be Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 1900s , Jim Crow , slavery , the outsiders were the people from the North , white people from the North , the abolitionist from the North .
Those were the outside agitators , so that ’ s the line : From the white people in the North to people who are Communists in other countries , to George Soros ... to antifa and Russia .
It ’ s the same process that ’ s been handed down over generations .
That ’ s why it resonates so much and is such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who think that way , because there are so many precursors .
In law , we think about precedent .
If you have a bunch of cases in the past that you can build on , then you have a stronger case to make .
It ’ s the same image in people ’ s minds , the outside agitator image : You saw Donald Trump playing on that , talking about trying to identify antifa as a terrorist organization .
How have you seen the use of the term “ outside agitator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s very effective in that it allows for more a harsh response .
Also , if the idea of outside agitator is providing funding or support , questions emerge about how come this is going to some or not others ?
People who are actually protesters may believe it and wonder why they ’ re being left out of the conversation .
Were you surprised to see public officials using this term again ?
I was not surprised .
In Charlottesville , Trump was trying to equalize the two sides and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antifa , that was a moral , radical equivalent to the Nazi side and so I specifically wasn ’ t surprised when he cited antifa and the radical left , because that is his outside agitator .
He ’ s not going to use Russia , because we all know his relationship with Russia .
How do you advise people to evaluate reports of groups taking advantage of the protests ?
I have seen reports also of white supremacist organizations , who wanted to use this opportunity to create some sort of mayhem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw that report , so remember those are two different things : the outside agitator is trying to support , at least in the trope of it .
When you think about white nationalists , now you ’ re talking about infiltrators .
The outside agitation trope versus the infiltration idea : It ’ s a subtle difference , but it is very true that there have been infiltrating groups in Ferguson , and I would not be surprised if there were infiltrators in the current protests .
The infiltrator idea is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protest by doing things that are going to hurt the protesters ’ cause .
The infiltrator thing is a real thing , I think that ’ s a legitimate issue .
We had uncovered people in Ferguson , in the southern region of the Black Panther Party , Brown Berets , Native American groups , the American Indian movement .
There ’ s an issue of infiltration in those movements where folks would join the movement who were actually undercover local police officers , those people would encourage other activists to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists .
They would pressure the other folks to be violent and they were undercover the entire time , that ’ s a real thing that happened .
How can people simultaneously call out infiltrators and not buy into outside agitator stereotypes , when public officials are using them ?
It ’ s hard to do that outside of organizations .
The reason that people are at a disadvantage here is in the past , if it were the Black Panthers , or Black Lives Matter , there were relationships people had when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have relationships when you join an organization , or you go out and register and communicate with people , and build a community with folks , you can build a sense of trust and know who ’ s who .
It ’ s very hard to do it if it ’ s all random people who just show up at the same place .
It ’ s actually a problem because if you get paranoid , there are legitimate people who are trying to help who you may alienate .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too lax , somebody can infiltrate and may do something really negative that can [ be associated with ] you .
The only real thing I can say to people is to try to build relationships with people who are there , so you know each other .
Almost all of these protests do have organizers , so be in contact with the organizer and try to build community .
When officials like the governor of Minnesota call protesters outsiders , do you think people should take those statements with a grain of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a politician with a grain of salt .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

To hear some people — including public officials — tell it, “outside agitators” have been playing an active role in protests over police brutality.
“Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda,” Attorney General Bill Barr said in a statement. “They are coming in largely from outside of the city, from outside of the region, to prey on everything we have built over the last several decades,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey noted. (Minnesota officials later walked back claims about out-of-state arrests.)
It’s a statement that activists have heard before, used throughout history to undermine the legitimacy of protests. By framing protests as the result of “outside” influence, lawmakers are able to undercut the validity of the protest itself and question activists’ capacity for organizing such a large-scale movement. At the same time, they’re able to maintain that they actually support activists’ broader cause of combatting police violence, while cracking down on protesters.
“The idea [behind the outside agitator] is that anything that’s formidable really couldn’t be pulled off by local black activists or protesters,” Howard University law professor Justin Hansford told Vox.
The term is one that he is very familiar with: Hansford was an activist during the Ferguson, Missouri, protests in 2014 and now he runs the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard.
“In Ferguson,” he said, “it was the same situation: it’s an effective tool because not only do you delegitimize the protest itself, but you also delegitimize the activists as not being skillful enough, or clever enough, to do this on their own. You play on racial tropes as well.”
It can be complicated, Hansford notes, as there are some groups and individuals who are trying to capitalize on these protests to sow chaos of their own. There have been reports, for example, of white supremacist groups taking advantage of these protests to try to impair the cause.
But Hansford characterizes these organizations as “infiltrators,” not “outside agitators,” and says there’s a key distinction: “Infiltrators” are organizations he describes as working to undermine the protest, while “outside agitators” are (in theory) given credit for amplifying it.
Other actors who’ve been a disruptive presence at the protest, like individuals who’ve taken advantage of this moment to loot stores, and YouTube influencers who’ve been among crowds damaging property, would not be considered “outside agitators.”
Hansford broke down the long history of the term “outside agitator” — which was used during the civil rights movement in the 1960s and as far back as the 1800s — in an interview with Vox. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Li Zhou
Could you start by talking about what the term “outside agitator” means, when it’s used in the context of the current protests?
Justin Hansford
Outside agitator is a racial term. The term means that protests are somehow less legitimate and really run by people who are, not black, usually white people, who are not local — people who are from different parts of the country or different parts of the world.
You may have seen people talk about Russian influence recently, fomenting this discussion. There’s another group they mention, which is seen as a predominately white organization. All these groups are, whether it’s Russia, whether it’s antifa, the idea is that anything that’s formidable really couldn’t be pulled off by local black activists or protesters. That’s actually the bottom line.
So, back in Ferguson, the outside agitator [that was raised] was George Soros. There’s an idea that these were paid protesters, it’s not legitimate, they are being paid to protest. Fox News was involved in promulgating that misnomer. I used to tell people — back then, if people were getting paid checks, I was wondering where my check was, because I never got a check. Nobody I know received a check.
In Ferguson, it was the same situation: It’s an effective tool because not only do you delegitimize the protest itself, but you also delegitimize the activists as not being skillful enough, or clever enough, to do this on their own. You play on racial tropes as well.
Hostility toward the protesting can be justified easier. Legitimate protesting based on a legitimate problem: Being hostile toward it would make you seem like a racist. This gives you grounds for being hostile toward the protest in a way you can justify it.
In the history, most people will first think about Dr. [Martin Luther King Jr]. He was said to have been influenced by communists: In the aftermath of the ’50s, the McCarthy hearings, being a communist was a really harsh character assassination. Sheriffs and segregationists throughout the South said that Dr. King was being influenced by, again, white, foreign, outside agitators, who were the ones behind the fomenting. So if it wasn’t for those outside agitators, black people could not pull off such a formidable protest. That was the other big parallel in history.
It goes back before that. It does go back to even during the [anti-slavery] movement: If there was ever any disruptions, or even rebellions, it was the same thing. The trope was just more explicit at that point: “Black people couldn’t pull this off themselves, it must be some people from the North.”
So even then, from slavery up through segregation, the outside agitator could be in the communist concepts in the ’50s, ’60s, could be Russia, and back then in the 1800s, early 1900s, Jim Crow, slavery, the outsiders were the people from the North, white people from the North, the abolitionist from the North. Those were the outside agitators, so that’s the line: From the white people in the North to people who are communists in other countries, to George Soros ... to antifa and Russia.
It’s the same process that’s been handed down over generations. That’s why it resonates so much and is such an easy thing to believe for folks who think that way, because there are so many precursors.
In law, we think about precedent. If you have a bunch of cases in the past that you can build on, then you have a stronger case to make.
It’s the same image in people’s minds, the outside agitator image: You saw Donald Trump playing on that, talking about trying to identify antifa as a terrorist organization.
Li Zhou
How have you seen the use of the term “outside agitator” undercut the validity of protests?
Justin Hansford
It’s very effective in that it allows for more a harsh response. Also, if the idea of outside agitator is providing funding or support, questions emerge about how come this is going to some or not others? People who are actually protesters may believe it and wonder why they’re being left out of the conversation.
Li Zhou
Were you surprised to see public officials using this term again?
Justin Hansford
I was not surprised. In Charlottesville, Trump was trying to equalize the two sides and he [elevated] this idea of antifa, that was a moral, radical equivalent to the Nazi side and so I specifically wasn’t surprised when he cited antifa and the radical left, because that is his outside agitator. He’s not going to use Russia, because we all know his relationship with Russia.
Li Zhou
How do you advise people to evaluate reports of groups taking advantage of the protests?
Justin Hansford
I have seen reports also of white supremacist organizations, who wanted to use this opportunity to create some sort of mayhem, specifically something called Boogaloo. I saw that report, so remember those are two different things: The outside agitator is trying to support, at least in the trope of it. When you think about white nationalists, now you’re talking about infiltrators.
The outside agitation trope versus the infiltration idea: It’s a subtle difference, but it is very true that there have been infiltrating groups in Ferguson, and I would not be surprised if there were infiltrators in the current protests. The infiltrator idea is a group that’s trying to harm the protest by doing things that are going to hurt the protesters’ cause.
The infiltrator thing is a real thing, I think that’s a legitimate issue. We had uncovered people in Ferguson, in the southern region of the Black Panther Party, Brown Berets, Native American groups, the American Indian movement.
There’s an issue of infiltration in those movements where folks would join the movement who were actually undercover local police officers, those people would encourage other activists to be violent, try to shame the other activists. They would pressure the other folks to be violent and they were undercover the entire time, that’s a real thing that happened.
Li Zhou
How can people simultaneously call out infiltrators and not buy into outside agitator stereotypes, when public officials are using them?
Justin Hansford
It’s hard to do that outside of organizations. The reason that people are at a disadvantage here is in the past, if it were the Black Panthers, or Black Lives Matter, there were relationships people had when you knew who was who. Because you have relationships when you join an organization, or you go out and register and communicate with people, and build a community with folks, you can build a sense of trust and know who’s who.
It’s very hard to do it if it’s all random people who just show up at the same place. It’s actually a problem because if you get paranoid, there are legitimate people who are trying to help who you may alienate. On the other hand, if you’re too lax, somebody can infiltrate and may do something really negative that can [be associated with] you.
The only real thing I can say to people is to try to build relationships with people who are there, so you know each other. Almost all of these protests do have organizers, so be in contact with the organizer and try to build community.
Li Zhou
When officials like the governor of Minnesota call protesters outsiders, do you think people should take those statements with a grain of salt?
Justin Hansford
Always take a statement from a politician with a grain of salt.


vox--2020-06-02--5 primary races to watch in Iowa

5 primary races to watch in Iowa

Update : Theresa Greenfield has won the Democratic primary for Senate and state Sen. Randy Feenstra has beaten Rep. Steve King in the Republican primary for the Fourth Congressional District .
Almost all of Iowa ’ s congressional delegation is contested this fall — and June 2 ’ s primary is set to play a major role in shaping what those races look like .
Statewide , the race to watch is the Democratic Senate primary , which will determine the candidate who ’ ll go up against Sen. Joni Ernst , the state ’ s Republican incumbent and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat , which Cook Political Report currently rates as Lean Republican , will be among the most closely watched this fall .
The state ’ s four House seats are also slated to be competitive in November : Three are currently held by Democrats and the fourth is held by embattled Republican Steve King , who has been censured by his colleagues for making a series of racist comments .
All four races will have crowded Republican primaries on Tuesday , while Democrats only have one candidate running in each .
Polls close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have live results updating throughout the evening , powered by Decision Desk .
Senate primary : Four Democrats compete to take on Sen. Joni Ernst Democrats are eager to retake Ernst ’ s seat — which they last held in 2014 — in November , and a field of four will duke it out for the chance on Tuesday .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee , the upper chamber ’ s campaign arm , has already backed Theresa Greenfield , a Des Moines real estate executive , who ’ s also picked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her competitors include Navy veteran Mike Franken , attorney Kimberly Graham , and insurance broker Eddie Mauro .
Spending for the Senate race has already ramped up during the primary , a preview of a general election race expected to be one of the most expensive in the country .
“ Democrats would argue that the spending will help introduce her [ Greenfield ] positively to Iowa voters — beyond helping her in the primary — and that such positive building-up will insulate her from Republican attacks later , ” says Kyle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia .
“ Some operatives on both sides believe that [ Arizona ’ s ] Kyrsten Sinema benefited from this dynamic in 2018.
” It ’ s a strategy Democrats hope will pay off in the fall , as they look to Iowa as one of the states that could help them secure a potential Senate majority .
Iowa ’ s First : Two Republicans vie for first-term Rep. Abby Finkenauer ’ s seat Rep. Abby Finkenauer was one of the Democrats who flipped a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , and this cycle , two Republicans are seeking to reclaim it .
Finkenauer is running unopposed on the Democratic side , while small-business owner Thomas Hansen and state Rep. Ashley Hinson are going head-to-head in the Republican primary .
Hinson is viewed as the favorite in the northeastern Iowa district : She ’ s served as a state lawmaker for the past few years and was previously a reporter for the regional television station KCRG-TV .
Hinson has a long slate of endorsements and extensive fundraising support , picking up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PACs including Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik ’ s E-PAC .
She ’ s one of a record number of Republican women who ’ ve filed to run for the House this year .
Cook Political Report rates the seat a Democratic Toss-Up .
Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack is leaving the House , prompting multiple Republicans to enter the fray for his southeastern Iowa seat .
State Sen. Rita Hart is the only Democrat in the race , while five Republican candidates will be on the ballot during this week ’ s primary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed as the frontrunners .
They are business leader and former Illinois Rep. Bobby Schilling and state senator and veteran Mariannette Miller-Meeks .
Miller-Meeks has a significant fundraising advantage , according to the Quad-City Times , while both have accrued endorsements from various lawmakers .
Miller-Meeks has picked up Ernst ’ s backing , and Schilling has that of Rep. Jim Jordan .
This seat could be contentious during the general election as well : Cook Political Report rates it a Democratic Toss-Up .
Iowa ’ s Third : A former Republican representative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Rep. Cindy Axne In 2018 , Democratic Rep. Cindy Axne unseated Republican Rep. David Young , who ’ s now trying to reclaim it .
Axne is running unopposed in the Democratic primary , and Young is one of two candidates looking to go up against her during the general election .
Young previously served in Congress for two terms , and he ’ ll be competing with Army veteran Bill Schafer on Tuesday .
Schafer has tried to cast himself as the candidate with grassroots support and frame Young as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican party ’ s backing .
Like several of the districts in the state , this one is also deemed a Democratic Toss-Up by Cook .
Iowa ’ s Fourth : Rep. Steve King fights for his political life in a packed Republican primary Republican Rep. Steve King is one of the most controversial members of the House : he ’ s been stripped of his committee assignments due to racist comments he made last year , when he defended white nationalism .
Now , four other Republicans are fighting to oust him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former professional baseball player and paralegal , is slated to be on the ticket for Democrats in November .
Given how crowded the field is , King could eke out a victory , though he ’ s lost some support to current state Sen. Randy Feenstra and trails him in fundraising .
King ’ s competition will hit him for his history of racist remarks as well as his inability to govern , since his committee assignments have been taken away .
The seat is expected to remain in Republican hands this fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Update: Theresa Greenfield has won the Democratic primary for Senate and state Sen. Randy Feenstra has beaten Rep. Steve King in the Republican primary for the Fourth Congressional District.
Almost all of Iowa’s congressional delegation is contested this fall — and June 2’s primary is set to play a major role in shaping what those races look like.
Statewide, the race to watch is the Democratic Senate primary, which will determine the candidate who’ll go up against Sen. Joni Ernst, the state’s Republican incumbent and one of Democrats’ top targets. The seat, which Cook Political Report currently rates as Lean Republican, will be among the most closely watched this fall.
The state’s four House seats are also slated to be competitive in November: Three are currently held by Democrats and the fourth is held by embattled Republican Steve King, who has been censured by his colleagues for making a series of racist comments. All four races will have crowded Republican primaries on Tuesday, while Democrats only have one candidate running in each.
Polls close at 9 pm ET. We’ll have live results updating throughout the evening, powered by Decision Desk.
Senate primary: Four Democrats compete to take on Sen. Joni Ernst
Democrats are eager to retake Ernst’s seat — which they last held in 2014 — in November, and a field of four will duke it out for the chance on Tuesday.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the upper chamber’s campaign arm, has already backed Theresa Greenfield, a Des Moines real estate executive, who’s also picked up support from Emily’s List. Her competitors include Navy veteran Mike Franken, attorney Kimberly Graham, and insurance broker Eddie Mauro.
Spending for the Senate race has already ramped up during the primary, a preview of a general election race expected to be one of the most expensive in the country.
“Democrats would argue that the spending will help introduce her [Greenfield] positively to Iowa voters — beyond helping her in the primary — and that such positive building-up will insulate her from Republican attacks later,” says Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia. “Some operatives on both sides believe that [Arizona’s] Kyrsten Sinema benefited from this dynamic in 2018.”
It’s a strategy Democrats hope will pay off in the fall, as they look to Iowa as one of the states that could help them secure a potential Senate majority.
Iowa’s First: Two Republicans vie for first-term Rep. Abby Finkenauer’s seat
Rep. Abby Finkenauer was one of the Democrats who flipped a Republican seat during the blue wave in 2018, and this cycle, two Republicans are seeking to reclaim it. Finkenauer is running unopposed on the Democratic side, while small-business owner Thomas Hansen and state Rep. Ashley Hinson are going head-to-head in the Republican primary.
Hinson is viewed as the favorite in the northeastern Iowa district: She’s served as a state lawmaker for the past few years and was previously a reporter for the regional television station KCRG-TV. Hinson has a long slate of endorsements and extensive fundraising support, picking up the backing of President Donald Trump and multiple PACs including Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik’s E-PAC. She’s one of a record number of Republican women who’ve filed to run for the House this year. Cook Political Report rates the seat a Democratic Toss-Up.
Iowa’s Second: An open Democratic seat attracts multiple Republican candidates
Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack is leaving the House, prompting multiple Republicans to enter the fray for his southeastern Iowa seat. State Sen. Rita Hart is the only Democrat in the race, while five Republican candidates will be on the ballot during this week’s primary.
Of the five candidates, two are viewed as the frontrunners. They are business leader and former Illinois Rep. Bobby Schilling and state senator and veteran Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Miller-Meeks has a significant fundraising advantage, according to the Quad-City Times, while both have accrued endorsements from various lawmakers. Miller-Meeks has picked up Ernst’s backing, and Schilling has that of Rep. Jim Jordan. This seat could be contentious during the general election as well: Cook Political Report rates it a Democratic Toss-Up.
Iowa’s Third: A former Republican representative is keen to get his seat back from Rep. Cindy Axne
In 2018, Democratic Rep. Cindy Axne unseated Republican Rep. David Young, who’s now trying to reclaim it. Axne is running unopposed in the Democratic primary, and Young is one of two candidates looking to go up against her during the general election.
Young previously served in Congress for two terms, and he’ll be competing with Army veteran Bill Schafer on Tuesday. Schafer has tried to cast himself as the candidate with grassroots support and frame Young as the establishment pick, as he has the Republican party’s backing. Like several of the districts in the state, this one is also deemed a Democratic Toss-Up by Cook.
Iowa’s Fourth: Rep. Steve King fights for his political life in a packed Republican primary
Republican Rep. Steve King is one of the most controversial members of the House: he’s been stripped of his committee assignments due to racist comments he made last year, when he defended white nationalism.
Now, four other Republicans are fighting to oust him, while J.D. Scholten, a former professional baseball player and paralegal, is slated to be on the ticket for Democrats in November. Given how crowded the field is, King could eke out a victory, though he’s lost some support to current state Sen. Randy Feenstra and trails him in fundraising.
King’s competition will hit him for his history of racist remarks as well as his inability to govern, since his committee assignments have been taken away. The seat is expected to remain in Republican hands this fall: Cook rates it Likely Republican.


vox--2020-06-02--Embattled Rep. Steve King has lost his primary

After losing his House Committee assignments over his defense of white supremacy last year , embattled Republican Rep. Steve King has officially lost his seat as well .
Tuesday night , King lost the Republican primary to represent Iowa ’ s Fourth Congressional District in the next term , putting an end to his long and controversial nine-term tenure in the House .
State Sen. Randy Feenstra ultimately dwarfed him in both fundraising and support from key players in the Republican Party , emerging as the primary winner in the expansive northwestern district .
It ’ s a big win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ King ’ s tight win in 2018 against Democrat J.D .
Scholten as a sign that Democrats had a real shot at winning against him in a presidential election year .
During the campaign this year , Feenstra ’ s main attack centered on King ’ s inability to effectively represent the district , since he likely would have been barred from committee work in the new term as well .
“ We have a congressman who was removed from the House Agriculture Committee and the Judiciary Committee by his own Republican colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moines Register op-ed .
Unseating King has been a longtime goal of Democrats , who have heavily criticized his record of making racist and sexist remarks including endorsing a white nationalist in Toronto ’ s mayoral race and questioning the need for exceptions for rape and incest in anti-abortion laws .
After King made a statement wondering why white supremacy and white nationalism were considered offensive last January , even Republican leadership censured him .
“ If he doesn ’ t understand why ‘ white supremacy ’ is offensive , he should find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time .
Feenstra ’ s policy platform isn ’ t significantly different from King ’ s : Much like Trump , he ’ s anti-abortion and supports hardline immigration policies including building a border wall .
Former baseball player and paralegal Scholten is slated to go up against Feenstra in the election this fall .
While he was less than 4 points behind King last cycle , Scholten may face a tougher fight this time around .
The seat is rated Likely Republican by Cook Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely be an uphill battle for Democrats in November .

After losing his House Committee assignments over his defense of white supremacy last year, embattled Republican Rep. Steve King has officially lost his seat as well.
Tuesday night, King lost the Republican primary to represent Iowa’s Fourth Congressional District in the next term, putting an end to his long and controversial nine-term tenure in the House. State Sen. Randy Feenstra ultimately dwarfed him in both fundraising and support from key players in the Republican Party, emerging as the primary winner in the expansive northwestern district.
It’s a big win for the Republican party, which saw King’s tight win in 2018 against Democrat J.D. Scholten as a sign that Democrats had a real shot at winning against him in a presidential election year.
During the campaign this year, Feenstra’s main attack centered on King’s inability to effectively represent the district, since he likely would have been barred from committee work in the new term as well. “We have a congressman who was removed from the House Agriculture Committee and the Judiciary Committee by his own Republican colleagues,” Feenstra wrote in a Des Moines Register op-ed.
Unseating King has been a longtime goal of Democrats, who have heavily criticized his record of making racist and sexist remarks including endorsing a white nationalist in Toronto’s mayoral race and questioning the need for exceptions for rape and incest in anti-abortion laws. After King made a statement wondering why white supremacy and white nationalism were considered offensive last January, even Republican leadership censured him.
“If he doesn’t understand why ‘white supremacy’ is offensive, he should find another line of work,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time.
Feenstra’s policy platform isn’t significantly different from King’s: Much like Trump, he’s anti-abortion and supports hardline immigration policies including building a border wall.
Former baseball player and paralegal Scholten is slated to go up against Feenstra in the election this fall. While he was less than 4 points behind King last cycle, Scholten may face a tougher fight this time around.
The seat is rated Likely Republican by Cook Political Report, a sign that it will likely be an uphill battle for Democrats in November.


vox--2020-06-02--Theresa Greenfield has won the Democratic Senate primary in Iowa

Des Moines real estate developer Theresa Greenfield has officially won Iowa ’ s Democratic Senate primary , which means she ’ ll take on sitting Sen. Joni Ernst , one of the upper chamber ’ s more vulnerable members , later this fall .
Greenfield was the Democratic Party favorite : She ’ d picked up the endorsements of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee , as well as backing from powerhouse groups like Emily ’ s List and Iowa ’ s AFL-CIO .
The party has already begun ramping up its spending in the race , which is among those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely watched and expensive during the general election this fall .
Greenfield grew up on a farm as the daughter of a crop-duster .
She previously worked as an urban planner and now runs a real estate development company .
In a campaign ad , Greenfield goes after Ernst ’ s trademark “ make them squeal ” tagline , which she ’ s previously used to claim that she ’ ll curb wasteful spending — though she ’ s since voted to support major tax breaks including the 2018 cuts .
Greenfield has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bolstering the social safety net if she ’ s elected , and cited her past reliance on Social Security as an example of why she finds such efforts important .
While Iowa is still rated as “ Lean Republican ” by Cook Political Report , it ’ s seen as a key target for the Democratic Party in its efforts to retake the Senate majority .
Ernst ’ s seat was held by Democrat Tom Harkin until 2014 , after all , and she ’ s currently one of the less popular senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consult .
The dynamics of the presidential election could well have a major impact on the momentum that candidates experience , too .
In Iowa , Trump ’ s approval is at 46 percent , though it ’ s surpassed by his disapproval rate , per a Morning Consult poll .
“ The key factor in all the congressional races in Iowa is the national landscape , ” University of Northern Iowa political science professor Donna Summer tells Vox .
“ The fate of the Democrats are tied to national fortunes .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this sense , hinges on how voters judge the economy.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Des Moines real estate developer Theresa Greenfield has officially won Iowa’s Democratic Senate primary, which means she’ll take on sitting Sen. Joni Ernst, one of the upper chamber’s more vulnerable members, later this fall.
Greenfield was the Democratic Party favorite: She’d picked up the endorsements of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as well as backing from powerhouse groups like Emily’s List and Iowa’s AFL-CIO. The party has already begun ramping up its spending in the race, which is among those that will be one of the most closely watched and expensive during the general election this fall.
Greenfield grew up on a farm as the daughter of a crop-duster. She previously worked as an urban planner and now runs a real estate development company. In a campaign ad, Greenfield goes after Ernst’s trademark “make them squeal” tagline, which she’s previously used to claim that she’ll curb wasteful spending — though she’s since voted to support major tax breaks including the 2018 cuts.
Greenfield has emphasized that she’ll focus on bolstering the social safety net if she’s elected, and cited her past reliance on Social Security as an example of why she finds such efforts important.
While Iowa is still rated as “Lean Republican” by Cook Political Report, it’s seen as a key target for the Democratic Party in its efforts to retake the Senate majority. Ernst’s seat was held by Democrat Tom Harkin until 2014, after all, and she’s currently one of the less popular senators in the country, according to Morning Consult.
The dynamics of the presidential election could well have a major impact on the momentum that candidates experience, too. In Iowa, Trump’s approval is at 46 percent, though it’s surpassed by his disapproval rate, per a Morning Consult poll.
“The key factor in all the congressional races in Iowa is the national landscape,” University of Northern Iowa political science professor Donna Hoffman tells Vox. “The fate of the Democrats are tied to national fortunes. The fortunes for the incumbent Republican Party, in this sense, hinges on how voters judge the economy.”


vox--2020-06-03--The protests over Breonna Taylor’s shooting death, explained

Hundreds of people gathered in Jefferson Square Park in Louisville , Kentucky , on Tuesday , many wearing masks , some bearing signs with messages like “ No More Excuses , No More Fear.
” They were there , like thousands around the country , to protest police violence in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May .
But in Louisville , protesters are also mourning deaths closer to home .
In March , Breonna Taylor , an EMT , was fatally shot in her apartment by police who were looking for someone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David McAtee , the owner of a local barbecue restaurant , was killed when law enforcement opened fire on a crowd .
“ All he did on that barbecue corner is try to make a dollar for himself and his family , ” McAtee ’ s mother , Odessa Riley , told the Louisville Courier-Journal .
“ And they come along and they killed my son.
” After McAtee ’ s death , Louisville Police Chief Steve Conrad was fired , and the FBI is investigating both McAtee ’ s and Taylor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others have continued to memorialize both .
On Tuesday , they held a vigil at the corner where McAtee cooked , and his nephew has pledged to keep his business going .
Meanwhile , activists are planning to commemorate Taylor ’ s birthday on Friday by sending cards to the attorney general of Kentucky , demanding that he file charges against the officers who shot her .
Campaign organizer Cate Young is also asking supporters to post art , music , or poetry in Taylor ’ s honor on social media — “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived and her life mattered , ” Young writes .
“ Let ’ s make June 5th Breonna Taylor Day.
” Breonna Taylor was an essential worker when she was killed in her home by police An EMT who wanted to be a nurse , the 26-year-old Taylor was an essential worker providing health care as the coronavirus pandemic worsened earlier this year .
Her mother , Tamika Palmer , told her , “ make sure you wash your hands , ” Palmer recalled to the 19th , which partnered with the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death .
Palmer didn ’ t think Taylor would be at risk in her own home .
But late at night on March 13 , Taylor was fatally shot by police in her Louisville apartment .
The officers were investigating two people suspected of selling drugs , neither of whom was Taylor .
Police said the officers knocked on the door to announce themselves .
But multiple neighbors say the officers neither knocked nor identified themselves , according to the family ’ s lawsuit .
They also weren ’ t wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , says he woke up and believed someone was trying to break into the apartment .
He fired a shot , hitting an officer in the leg .
Police then fired more than 20 rounds into the apartment .
Taylor was hit eight times and died at the scene .
Taylor ’ s family members , who are alleging excessive force and gross negligence in her death , filed suit on April 27 against the three officers involved in the shooting .
Taylor ’ s family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also working with the family of Ahmaud Arbery , an unarmed black man killed while jogging in February .
“ If you ran for Ahmaud , you need to stand for Bre , ” Crump told the 19th in early May .
Since then , Taylor ’ s death has gotten increasingly widespread national attention — especially after Floyd was also killed by police .
As protests against police brutality spread around the country , demonstrators in Louisville have been remembering Taylor , as well as Floyd and others .
But authorities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also imposed curfews in response to protests in recent days .
And on Sunday night , police and the National Guard were sent to a parking lot at 26th and Broadway in downtown Louisville on Sunday at about 12:15 am , according to NBC , to break up a crowd that had gathered after the 9 pm curfew .
Police say they began shooting after being fired on by the crowd .
“ Officers and soldiers began to clear the lot and at some point were shot at , ” Conrad said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both LMPD and national guard members returned fire.
” McAtee , 53 , was fatally shot .
He owned a barbecue restaurant on the corner where the crowd had gathered .
Riley , his mother , says he was a “ community pillar , ” known for giving free meals to police officers .
“ He left a great legend behind , ” Riley told the Louisville Courier-Journal .
“ He was a good person.
” Several sources say the crowd in the parking lot was not actually protesting when police arrived .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out past the city ’ s curfew .
And McAtee ’ s sister told WAVE 3 News that McAtee and others meet in the area every Sunday night for food and music , and that her brother was serving food .
It is not yet clear who shot McAtee .
In the wake of his death , his family called for officers ’ body camera footage of the shooting to be released and for the National Guard to be pulled out of Louisville .
But on Monday , Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footage .
He also announced the firing of Conrad from his role as police chief .
Conrad had already announced his upcoming retirement as attention to Taylor ’ s killing grew .
In addition to the FBI investigation , Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear has ordered an independent investigation by state police .
And protesters in Louisville and around the country are honoring both McAtee ’ s memory and Taylor ’ s .
On Tuesday , demonstrators marched on the University of Louisville to demand it cut ties with the police .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people marched from the spot where McAtee was killed to Jefferson Square Park , with cars lined up honking in support — until police dispersed the crowd with tear gas .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Hundreds of people gathered in Jefferson Square Park in Louisville, Kentucky, on Tuesday, many wearing masks, some bearing signs with messages like “No More Excuses, No More Fear.”
They were there, like thousands around the country, to protest police violence in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May. But in Louisville, protesters are also mourning deaths closer to home. In March, Breonna Taylor, an EMT, was fatally shot in her apartment by police who were looking for someone else. And late on Sunday night, David McAtee, the owner of a local barbecue restaurant, was killed when law enforcement opened fire on a crowd.
“All he did on that barbecue corner is try to make a dollar for himself and his family,” McAtee’s mother, Odessa Riley, told the Louisville Courier-Journal. “And they come along and they killed my son.”
After McAtee’s death, Louisville Police Chief Steve Conrad was fired, and the FBI is investigating both McAtee’s and Taylor’s killings. And Louisville residents and others have continued to memorialize both. On Tuesday, they held a vigil at the corner where McAtee cooked, and his nephew has pledged to keep his business going. Meanwhile, some are planning to commemorate Taylor’s birthday on Friday by sending cards to the attorney general of Kentucky, demanding that he file charges against the officers who shot her.
Ok! I finally have something concrete to share. Below is the official list of action items for this Friday's #BirthdayForBreonna initiatives. Do as many as you can and share this widely so others can participate. Let's make sure to #SayHerName. https://t.co/uJr5qPK2YA — Cate Young (@battymamzelle) June 3, 2020
Campaign organizer Cate Young is also asking supporters to post art, music, or poetry in Taylor’s honor on social media — “anything that will remind people that she lived and her life mattered,” Young writes. “Let’s make June 5th Breonna Taylor Day.”
Breonna Taylor was an essential worker when she was killed in her home by police
An EMT who wanted to be a nurse, the 26-year-old Taylor was an essential worker providing health care as the coronavirus pandemic worsened earlier this year.
Her mother, Tamika Palmer, told her, “make sure you wash your hands,” Palmer recalled to the 19th, which partnered with the Washington Post to cover the story of Taylor’s death.
Palmer didn’t think Taylor would be at risk in her own home. But late at night on March 13, Taylor was fatally shot by police in her Louisville apartment. The officers were investigating two people suspected of selling drugs, neither of whom was Taylor.
Police said the officers knocked on the door to announce themselves. But multiple neighbors say the officers neither knocked nor identified themselves, according to the family’s lawsuit. They also weren’t wearing body cams.
When police arrived, Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, says he woke up and believed someone was trying to break into the apartment. He fired a shot, hitting an officer in the leg. Police then fired more than 20 rounds into the apartment. Taylor was hit eight times and died at the scene.
Taylor’s family members, who are alleging excessive force and gross negligence in her death, filed suit on April 27 against the three officers involved in the shooting. Taylor’s family has retained Benjamin Crump, an attorney who also working with the family of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black man killed while jogging in February.
“If you ran for Ahmaud, you need to stand for Bre,” Crump told the 19th in early May.
Since then, Taylor’s death has gotten increasingly widespread national attention — especially after Floyd was also killed by police. As protests against police brutality spread around the country, demonstrators in Louisville have been remembering Taylor, as well as Floyd and others.
Louisville “community pillar” David McAtee shot after protest curfew
But authorities in Louisville, as in other cities, have also imposed curfews in response to protests in recent days. And on Sunday night, police and the National Guard were sent to a parking lot at 26th and Broadway in downtown Louisville at about 12:15 am, according to NBC, to break up a crowd that had gathered after the 9 pm curfew.
Police say they began shooting after being fired on by the crowd. “Officers and soldiers began to clear the lot and at some point were shot at,” Conrad said in his statement on Monday. “Both LMPD and national guard members returned fire.”
McAtee, 53, was fatally shot. He owned a barbecue restaurant on the corner where the crowd had gathered. Riley, his mother, says he was a “community pillar,” known for giving free meals to police officers. “He left a great legend behind,” Riley told the Louisville Courier-Journal. “He was a good person.”
Several sources say the crowd in the parking lot was not actually protesting when police arrived. One bystander told reporters they were merely out past the city’s curfew. And McAtee’s sister told WAVE 3 News that McAtee and others meet in the area every Sunday night for food and music, and that her brother was serving food.
It is not yet clear who shot McAtee. In the wake of his death, his family called for officers’ body camera footage of the shooting to be released and for the National Guard to be pulled out of Louisville. But on Monday, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer announced that the officers had not recorded any footage. He also announced the firing of Conrad from his role as police chief. Conrad had already announced his upcoming retirement as attention to Taylor’s killing grew.
In addition to the FBI investigation, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has ordered an independent investigation by state police. And protesters in Louisville and around the country are honoring both McAtee’s memory and Taylor’s. On Tuesday, demonstrators marched on the University of Louisville to demand it cut ties with the police.
Group of protestors is marching through @uofl’s campus demanding the university cut ties with LMPD. pic.twitter.com/Zds0JDxj7t — Drew Gardner (@WLKYDrew) June 2, 2020
On Monday, according to the Washington Post, people marched from the spot where McAtee was killed to Jefferson Square Park, with cars lined up honking in support — until police dispersed the crowd with tear gas.


vox--2020-06-03--Jack Dorsey is giving millions to Colin Kaepernick’s criminal justice group

The police killing of George Floyd , an unarmed black man in Minneapolis , has shaken the country — including Silicon Valley .
Tech billionaires are putting millions into criminal justice efforts as protests of police brutality and racial injustice have spread across the US .
The largest announced gift yet came on Wednesday from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey , who said he was donating $ 3 million to a group founded by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick , who became the face of protests against police brutality in 2016 by kneeling during the national anthem .
The millions in donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wealthiest , some of whom are saying they have not done enough to prioritize issues important to black Americans .
Dorsey ’ s gift was preceded by one from Reed Hastings , the billionaire founder of Netflix who has largely focused his activism and charity on education reform .
On Tuesday , Hastings said he would donate $ 1 million to a group researching police reform , the Center for Policing Equity .
And about three dozen venture capitalists have together publicly committed another $ 2 million to groups focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have announced their own charitable gifts .
Some critics of philanthropy see these gifts as insufficient ways to address systemic racism , saying that these tech leaders perpetuate racial inequality in their day jobs by not hiring diverse teams or clamping down on racist rhetoric on their platforms .
That syncs with a broader critique of mega philanthropy that has become louder in recent years : that the wealthy should focus on reducing their harm rather than making major gifts .
Criminal justice reform has been a priority for some , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg , who said this week that his and his wife Priscilla Chan ’ s charitable entity , the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative , gives away about $ 40 million a year for this work .
But this issue is now having more widespread resonance in the aftermath of the killing of Floyd and others .
Take Dorsey , for instance .
Dorsey , who is also the founder of the payments company Square , sent shock waves this spring when he announced a new $ 1 billion commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The predominant focus , he said at the time , would be coronavirus relief , but it would eventually spend money on two other efforts — promoting universal basic income and issues important to women and girls .
Criminal justice reform wasn ’ t included .
But earlier this week , Dorsey tweeted that there had to be “ police policy reform now.
” And then his gift on Wednesday to Kaepernick ’ s group , called Know Your Rights Camp , is the first time a group of the 60 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with the coronavirus .
The gift , Dorsey said , would “ advance the liberation and well-being of Black and Brown communities through education , self-empowerment , mass-mobilization to elevate the next generation of change leaders.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man in Minneapolis, has shaken the country — including Silicon Valley. Tech billionaires are putting millions into criminal justice efforts as protests of police brutality and racial injustice have spread across the US.
The largest announced gift yet came on Wednesday from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who said he was donating $3 million to a group founded by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who became the face of protests against police brutality in 2016 by kneeling during the national anthem.
The millions in donations are a new push for Silicon Valley’s wealthiest, some of whom are saying they have not done enough to prioritize issues important to black Americans.
Dorsey’s gift was preceded by one from Reed Hastings, the billionaire founder of Netflix, who has largely focused his activism and charity on education reform. On Tuesday, Hastings said he would donate $1 million to a group researching police reform, the Center for Policing Equity. And about three dozen venture capitalists have together publicly committed another $2 million to groups focused on race and criminal justice. Tech companies have announced their own charitable gifts.
Some critics of philanthropy see these gifts as insufficient ways to address systemic racism, saying that these tech leaders perpetuate racial inequality in their day jobs by not hiring diverse teams or not clamping down on racist rhetoric on their platforms. That syncs with a broader critique of mega philanthropy that has become louder in recent years: that the wealthy should focus on reducing their harm rather than making major gifts.
Criminal justice reform has been a priority for some, but not all, major tech donors, such as Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who said this week that his and his wife Priscilla Chan’s charitable entity, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, gives away about $40 million a year for this work. But this issue is now having more widespread resonance in the aftermath of the killing of Floyd and others.
Take Dorsey, for instance. Dorsey, who is also the founder of the payments company Square, sent shock waves this spring when he announced a new $1 billion commitment to a new charitable initiative called Start Small. The predominant focus, he said at the time, would be coronavirus relief, but it would eventually spend money on two other efforts: promoting universal basic income and issues important to women and girls.
Criminal justice reform wasn’t included. But earlier this week, Dorsey tweeted that there had to be “police policy reform now.” And then his gift on Wednesday to Kaepernick’s group, called Know Your Rights Camp, is the first time a group of the 60 or so he has backed has nothing to do with the coronavirus.
The gift, Dorsey said, would “advance the liberation and well-being of Black and Brown communities through education, self-empowerment, mass-mobilization to elevate the next generation of change leaders.”