RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu

Herring Calls For Marijuana Decriminalization

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

In a Daily Press Op-Ed published on Sunday, Virginia’s Attorney General made the case for decriminalizing possession of marijuana.

In a move that pleased cannabis advocates and made headlines around the state, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring wrote an op-ed in Sunday’s Daily Press calling for the decriminalization of “minor marijuana possession.”

“Virginia should decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, address past convictions and start moving toward legal and regulated adult use,” Herring wrote in the op-ed.

Herring cited a massive increase in arrests and first-time convictions for marijuana possession in Virginia between 2008 and 2017. According to Herring, arrests have increased 115 percent, from 13,000 in 2008 to 28,000 in 2017, while first-time marijuana convictions have risen in the same time period from 6,500 to 10,000.

He also pointed out that those affected by arrest and prosecution for marijuana possession are disproportionately African-Americans and people of color. “The Virginia Crime Commission found that African Americans comprised 46% of all first offense possession arrests from 2007 to 2016, despite comprising just 20% of Virginia’s population and despite studies consistently showing that marijuana usage rates are comparable between African Americans and white Americans,” Herring wrote in the op-ed.

As Attorney General, Herring’s position at the state level won’t have an impact on prosecutions, which take place at the level of local government. He did praise Commonwealth’s Attorneys who have made moves to reduce the number of marijuana possession cases moving through the courts, but said that “locality-by-locality action is no substitute for a rational, unified statewide policy.”

In order to make any sort of practical change on this level, Herring will need his cause to be taken up by members of the General Assembly. The state legislature, which has been Republican-controlled for nearly a decade, has previously blocked any attempts to reform the commonwealth’s marijuana laws. However, Delegate Steve Heretick of Virginia’s 79th District, which includes parts of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, told 13NewsNow that he intended to introduce legislation to decriminalize simple marijuana possession in the 2020 General Assembly session.

“Over 36 states and U.S. territories have regulated marijuana use by adults, so Virginia is not new to this,” Heretick said to 13NewsNow. “We have been looking at criminalization and legalization for some time now.”

Jenn Michelle Pedini, who is the Executive Director of the Virginia chapter of NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws), saw Herring’s statement as a positive and helpful step.

“The public’s response to Attorney General Herring’s statement not only supporting decriminalizing but legalizing and regulating adult use of marijuana has been overwhelmingly positive,” Pedini told 13NewsNow. “What this does is moves this issue to the front burner of Virginia politics.”

In November, all 140 members of the Virginia General Assembly will face elections. With Republican control of both houses held by an extremely narrow margin (21-19 in the Virginia Senate, 51-49 in the House Of Delegates), Democrats will be working hard to gain control and have an opportunity to pass a variety of legislation long blocked by Republican lawmakers. If Democrats do regain control of the General Assembly, it seems very likely that marijuana reform will be one of the first issues on the docket.

And for Herring, it’s high time. “We can’t avoid the conversation any longer,” he wrote in the Daily Press. “It is time for Virginia to embrace a better, smarter, and fairer approach to cannabis.”

Hate Crimes in Virginia Jump Almost by Half

|

Topics: , , , , , ,

Hate crimes in Virginia rose nearly 50 percent from 2016 to 2017. This year, Attorney General Mark Herring proposed legislation to deal with the problem… but all of the bills died in the General Assembly.

Virginia recorded more than 200 hate crimes in 2017 — up nearly 50% from the previous year, according to the latest data from the Virginia State Police.

That surge, along with the neo-Nazi rally that left a counterprotester dead in Charlottesville two years ago, prompted state Attorney General Mark Herring to propose legislation to address the problem. However, all of the bills died in this year’s General Assembly.

The FBI defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”

According to data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 7,175 hate crimes were reported across the U.S. in 2017. About 60% of those crimes were related to race, 21% to religion and 16% to sexual orientation.

In Virginia, hate crimes jumped from 137 in 2016 to 202 the following year, according to the Virginia State Police. Virginia had more hate crimes in 2017 than during any year since 2008.

Of the 202 hate crimes committed in 2017:

  • 89 (44%) were racially motivated
  • 44 (22%) were religiously motivated
  • 38 (19%) were related to sexual orientation,
  • 20 (10%) were related to ethnicity
  • 11 (5%) were motivated by bias against disability

Herring has been concerned about the issue for several years. In 2016, he launched his “No Hate VA” initiative, which included creating a website and holding discussion groups across the state to address the rise in hate crimes.

“I’m putting these ideas forward and convening these roundtables because it’s time for action,” Herring stated in a press release.

“I will do everything I can and work with anyone who wants to ensure that all Virginians are protected from hate and violence, no matter what they look like, how they worship, where they come from, or who they love.”

In August 2017, a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly after James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of counterdemonstrators, injuring dozens of people and killing Heather Heyer. Herring then amped up his fight against hate crimes and white supremacist groups.

In 2018 and again this year, Herring called on the General Assembly to pass laws dealing with hate crimes. His 2019 legislative agenda included:

  • Updating Virginia’s definition of “hate crime” by adding gender and sexual orientation.
  • Allowing the attorney general to prosecute hate crimes across multiple jurisdictions.
  • Prohibiting paramilitary activity such as “drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm or explosive or incendiary device.”
  • Banning firearms from public events.
  • Banning firearms from individuals who have been convicted of a hate crime.

Virginia defines a hate crime as “any legal act directed against any persons or property because of those persons’ race, religion or national origin.”

Unlike the federal definition, Virginia’s definition of a hate crime does not include gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. (In its annual statistics, the Virginia State Police categorize offenses according to the federal definition.)

Legislation to expand Virginia’s definition of a hate crime was carried by Sen. Barbara Favola, D-Arlington. SB 1375 was killed in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee on an 8-6 party-line vote, with Republicans voting against the bill.

Democratic Sens. Louise Lucas of Portsmouth and Creigh Deeds of Bath County sponsored the legislation to prohibit paramilitary activity. SB 1210 sought to charge individuals with a Class 5 felony if “a person is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity if such person assembles with another person with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm or explosive or incendiary device or any components or combination thereof.”

The bill cleared the Senate Courts of Justice Committee on a 7-6 vote but died in the Senate Finance Committee.

In all, 10 bills before the General Assembly this year attempted to address hate crimes. Seven of the bills were defeated in the House of Delegates and three in the Senate.

For example, two identical bills were introduced to let local governments prohibit firearms at public events: HB 1956 by Del. David Toscano, D-Charlottesville, and SB 1473 by Deeds. Both measures aimed to authorize “any locality by ordinance to prohibit the possession or carrying of firearms, ammunition, or components or any combination thereof in a public space during a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit.”

Both bills died in their chamber of origin.

Attorney General Mark Herring.

Despite the lack of legislative action, advocacy groups across Virginia are working to help victims of hate crimes. Assistance ranges from counseling to lawyer referrals.

Herring’s “No Hate VA” includes resources for victims of hate crimes as well as advice on how to report a crime.

The website encourages victims to immediately report hate crimes to the police and to their local FBI office. The FBI has an online form at https://tips.fbi.gov

A Run-in with Hate: One Man’s Story

What started as a normal evening hanging out with friends took a quick turn for Richmond resident Phillip Sampson. As Sampson was walking down the street with a friend, a stranger approached. Sampson, who describes himself as having an outgoing personality, went to greet the passerby with a friendly “Hello!”

Before the words came out, Sampson was struck across the chest with a fist to his shoulder, knocking him back, while slurs were shouted at him.

“Expletives start flying out, and he starts cursing at me and yelling, and I’m like ‘what is going on?’” Sampson said.

The individual, who Sampson later found out is his friend’s brother, continued to yell at him and his friend before trying to break into the friend’s car. Still in shock over the situation, Sampson went to sit in his car and wait for the police to arrive.

Sampson identifies as gay and believes that was the motive behind the incidents. Having never been in this type of situation before, he was relieved when police arrived within minutes.

He said the two officers who arrived handled the situation professionally and took time to make sure he was OK. After telling the police what happened, Sampson said he was surprised by the compassion and genuine concern expressed by the officers.

“They walked me through what my options were and provided contact information so that I could reach out if I needed anything,” Sampson said.

He considers himself lucky that he was not seriously hurt but feels others in similar situations might not be as fortunate.

Sampson said that he did not need to utilize any victim resources, but he is glad to know that they are available to others.

“I was happy to see what was available to me had I needed them,” he said. “It’s comforting to know that there is help out there for those who really need it.”

Written by Jayla Marie McNeill and Ben Burstein, Capital News Service. Top photo: RVA Mag archives

Opinion Paves Way to Rename ‘Racist’ Jefferson Davis Highway

|

Topics: , , , , , , , ,

Attempting to disassociate from the former Confederate president’s legacy of racism and slavery, Arlington County is taking steps to rename their portion of Jefferson Davis Highway. And Attorney General Herring says they have the legal right to do so.

The portion of Jefferson Davis Highway that runs through Arlington County could be renamed as early as this summer thanks to the discovery of a loophole in state law and a legal opinion from the Virginia attorney general.

Attorney General Mark Herring said the name change does not need approval from the General Assembly. Instead, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has authority to rename the section of Jefferson Davis Highway if Arlington County makes such a request, the opinion said.

Herring’s opinion was requested by Del. Mark Levine, D-Alexandria. Levine opposes having a road named after Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America.

“In Arlington County, one of the most diverse and progressive localities in the nation, we are saddled with a primary highway that honors a racist traitor and slave owner who led the fight to take up arms against our nation in order to preserve the brutal system of slavery,” Levine said in a newsletter to constituents.

“In that brutal Civil War, more Americans died than in all of our other wars combined. We still live with the terrible legacy of that ruthless and once-legal system of terror that represents America’s greatest shame.”

Before Herring issued his opinion, the general understanding was that local governments lacked authority to change names that the General Assembly had placed on certain roads.

Several years ago, the attorney general’s office issued an advisory opinion saying city governments had the power to rename state highways but county governments didn’t. Last year, legislators killed a bill to authorize local governments to rename highways in their jurisdictions.

On Jan. 1, the section of Jefferson Davis Highway through the city of Alexandria was renamed Richmond Highway to match the name the road has always carried in Fairfax County.

To change the highway’s name in Arlington County, Levine took things into his own hands. He found a loophole in a footnote to transportation legislation that the General Assembly passed in 2012.

That legislation deleted a line in state law prohibiting the Commonwealth Transportation Board from changing the names of “highways, bridges or interchanges as have been or hereafter be named by the General Assembly.”

According to the opinion Herring released Thursday, lawmakers’ actions in 2012 showed “clear legislative intent to empower the CTB to rename transportation facilities that were originally named by the General Assembly.”

“Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Commonwealth Transportation Board may change the name of those portions of Jefferson Davis Highway located in Arlington County, provided that its Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution requesting the renaming,” the opinion said.

The designation of Jefferson Davis Highway began almost a century ago. In 1922, the United Daughters of the Confederacy asked that a Southern transcontinental highway be named to honor Davis, who was a senator from the state of Mississippi before becoming the first and only president of the Confederacy.

The Virginia General Assembly’s response was to name Highway 1 as the Jefferson Davis Highway, stretching from Washington, D.C., to the North Carolina line. Today, Jefferson Davis Highway also can go by other names, such as U.S. Route 1 and Route 18.

Some people want to keep the name as Jefferson Davis Highway. More than 600 people signed an online petition saying renaming the road would be “a slap in the face to U.S. soldiers as a whole and should not be permitted to happen.” However, more than 4,300 signed a petition supporting the name change.

Levine said Arlington County supervisors could ask for the name change this month — and then the request would go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

“If all goes well, Arlington street signs could be changed as early as this summer,” he said.

Levine said times have changed since the United Daughters of the Confederacy sought to honor Davis and preserve his legacy.

“It’s 2019. It is not 1865, nor 1922, nor even 1953,” Levine said. “We live in a post-Charlottesville time. And the vast majority of Northern Virginia no longer wants to honor the Confederacy or the racist legacy of Jefferson Davis.”

By Alexandra Zernik, Capital News Service.

Charlottesville Leads the Way on Reforming Cash Bail System

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

When someone is charged with a crime, prosecutors and judges want to make sure the defendant shows up for court. So they usually require the person to put up cash bail — money the defendants forfeit if they skip town.

But now, many officials — from local prosecutors to the state attorney general — are rethinking that practice. They say that cash bail penalizes low-income defendants and that GPS monitoring and other technology are just as effective as a monetary incentive to return to court.

“Virginia’s current system of cash bail too often determines who has money, not who is dangerous, and we can’t have a justice system that determines fairness and freedom based on wealth and means,” Attorney General Mark Herring said in calling on state lawmakers to address the issue.

Legislation to reform the bail system failed in this year’s General Assembly. But commonwealth’s attorneys in a handful of localities are plowing ahead on their own, recommending that nonviolent defendants be released on an unsecured bond or personal recognizance — basically, by giving their word that they will show up for court.

Charlottesville is a textbook example of this new approach. Authorities there say it is working.

In most circumstances, Charlottesville officials haven’t used cash bonds since 2000. Prosecutors instead prefer to release defendants back into the community without having them pay money.

Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Joe Platania. Photo via CNS

Commonwealth’s Attorney Joe Platania said cash bonds don’t enhance public safety and don’t treat low-income offenders fairly.

“We haven’t seen a negative impact related to community safety by using a system where we don’t rely on cash or secure bonds,” Platania said. “If they’re not going to go out and hurt anyone or be a danger to the community, it doesn’t make sense for them to pay money to be released.”

Charlottesville officials use risk assessment tools to determine whether pretrial defendants will be a threat to the community or likely to miss their trial date. If a defendant doesn’t fall into either of those categories, prosecutors typically recommend the judge release the person on unsecured bond or personal recognizance.

Defendants released on unsecured bond have to pay the bond only if they fail to appear for trial. Personal recognizance means defendants are released on the basis of a promise that they will return to court.

In cases where defendants are accused of violent or serious crimes, prosecutors ask that they remain behind bars until they’re slated to appear in court.

“If we feel someone is a threat to themselves or the community, we ask that the person be held until their trial,” Platania said.

In most Virginia localities, judges and prosecutors routinely recommend cash bonds. Defendants who can’t pay go to jail.

According to the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit advocacy groups, 47 percent of people in Virginia jails in 2015 were awaiting trial and had not been convicted of a crime. That was true of 65 percent of people held in jails nationwide in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Charlottesville began reforming cash bond practices under Dave Chapman, who served as commonwealth’s attorney from 1993 until 2017.

According to Chapman, Charlottesville’s criminal justice system transitioned from cash bail when the Virginia Pretrial Services Act was enacted in 1995.

“It’s just one of many things we’ve done in Charlottesville to try and eliminate the way in which poverty affects the case of a person who is indigent,” Chapman said. “If a locality has access to pretrial supervision services through a community corrections agency and doesn’t make use of it fully, they’re missing the boat.”

As of January 2018, there were 33 pretrial agencies serving 75 percent of Virginia’s localities, according to the Virginia State Crime Commission. Thirty-four localities in the state didn’t have access to a pretrial agency.

Chapman said that he supported recent efforts to reform cash bonds.

“The reality is, we’ve been doing this for years in Charlottesville,” Chapman said. “I would urge localities that are just getting into the field to come to Charlottesville and take a look at what OAR does and how they do it because it’s a model that can be replicated.”

OAR-Jefferson Area Community Corrections is a nonprofit based in Charlottesville that provides cost-effective alternatives to incarceration, including pretrial supervision and risk assessment screenings.

Executive Director Ross Carew said the organization conducts interviews, investigations and criminal background and reference checks after a defendant is arrested. The group uses a tool called the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument to make an initial bail release decision and to determine the supervision level for defendants placed on pretrial supervision.

“We look at all the different factors that could make somebody a risk to not show up to court, or to get in trouble during that period of pretrial,” Carew said. “All of that information is used to inform the court so they can make a risk-based release decision.”

Carew said holding a defendant in jail is more expensive than placing the person on pretrial supervision where the average length of supervision is 116 days. It costs about $94 per day to hold someone in Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and about $3 a day to keep someone on pretrial services, officials say.

The discussion around cash bond reform has gained momentum in Virginia in the past year.

Last April, Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Mike Herring announced that his office would no longer seek cash bonds for defendants awaiting trial.

In November, Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said she would no longer seek cash bail for people accused of most low-level misdemeanors. Scott Miles, who was elected commonwealth’s attorney in Chesterfield County that month, said he would not seek cash bail for pretrial defendants.

After Mark Herring, the state attorney general, called on lawmakers to reform the cash bond system, Democrats introduced two bills in the General Assembly seeking to start that process.

SB 1687, filed by Sen. Jennifer McClellan of Richmond, and HB 2121, sponsored by Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy of Prince William County, would have required Virginia’s Department of Criminal Justice Services to collect data about the use of bail in all Virginia localities. Both bills were killed in committee.

Elizabeth Murtagh, Charlottesville’s public defender, said pretrial services are a far better option for her clients than being held in jail on bond. Murtagh’s clients typically fall below the state poverty line.

“Getting locked up is one of the most disruptive things to a family that I can think of. If you’re helping to provide for your family, that’s a problem if you get locked up,” Murtagh said. “It has a huge ripple effect.”

By Daniel Berti, Capital News Service. Top Photo: Public Domain/CC 1.0

Most Virginians Don’t Want Officials to Resign, Poll Finds

|

Topics: , , , , ,

Some want Northam, Fairfax, and Herring to resign. Some want them to stay in office. And almost half of Virginians polled just weren’t sure.

Virginians have low approval ratings of Gov. Ralph Northam and Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, but most people say no one should resign or be impeached, according to a recent poll by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. It found that of the state’s three top officials, Attorney General Mark Herring is the best-positioned to remain in office.

Over the past month, the three leaders, all Democrats, have been under scrutiny after several scandals, and some politicians and groups have called for their resignations.

  • Two women have accused Fairfax of sexual assault — allegations he has denied.
  • Northam has been in hot water after the discovery of a photograph in his medical school yearbook showing a man in blackface and another in Ku Klux Klan garb. Northam initially apologized for the photograph and then denied he was in the picture. He later admitted to putting “a little bit of” shoe polish on his face to imitate Michael Jackson in a 1984 dance competition.
  • After calling for Northam’s resignation, Attorney General Mark Herring apologized for wearing blackface when he was 19 years old to imitate a rapper.

With that backdrop, U.Va.’s Center for Politics asked a representative sample of Virginia adults about their opinions of Northam, Fairfax and Herring.

The poll found that of the three leaders, more people believe Fairfax should quit. Thirty-five percent believe Fairfax should resign, and 28 percent favored impeachment.

Only 17 percent of Virginians approve of the governor’s job performance. However, only 31 percent of respondents say he should resign, and 21 percent believe he should be impeached.

According to the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, there was a strong racial divide over whether Fairfax should resign. Thirty-nine percent of white respondents said they favored his resignation, compared with only 8 percent of black respondents.

Of the three officials, Herring had the fewest number of people suggesting he resign (19 percent) or be impeached (14 percent).

The poll involved interviewing 636 adults from Feb. 15-19. It had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

By Emily Holter, Capital News Service. Images via CNS

Virginia Joins 15 Other States to Sue Trump Over Wall Funding

|

Topics: , , , , ,

At issue is the president’s declaration of a “state of emergency” in order to acquire funding for his Mexican border wall without gaining Congress’s approval.

Virginia has joined a coalition of 15 other states to challenge President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency and to block the diversion of congressional funding to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

“Concocting a fake emergency to build a needless wall goes against the Constitution and the values America was built on,” Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement.

“President Trump’s ill-advised plan could divert critical funds from actual national security priorities, including military construction projects at bases and facilities throughout Virginia. We must stand up to this administration when it violates the law and attacks our values.”

According Herring’s statement, the complaint was filed to block Trump’s “fabricated” national emergency declaration and the “unconstitutional” diversion of appropriated federal funding to pay for the construction of the border wall.

On Friday, Trump said he would declare a national emergency in order to bypass Congress to fund the construction of a wall along the southern border.

The White House released a statement stating that the president has “clear authority” to declare a national emergency and that Trump is taking “necessary steps” to “ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border.”

“We fight wars that are 6,000 miles away, wars that we should have never been in in many cases, but we don’t control our own border,” Trump said in his speech Friday at the White House. “So we are going to confront the national-security crisis on our southern border. And we are going to do it one way or the other.”

The administration estimated that the national emergency declaration will make over $8 billion in taxpayer funds available to build the border wall.

Other states participating in the lawsuit includes Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and California.

The states contend that Trump’s emergency declaration is only a means to justify using federal funding to pay for his border wall.

“The states allege that the Trump Administration’s action exceeds the power of the executive office, violates the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, and would illegally and unconstitutionally divert federal funds appropriated by Congress for other purposes,” Herring’s statement said.

“The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the emergency declaration, the construction of the wall, and any illegal diversion of congressionally-appropriated funds.”

According to the attorney general’s statement, Virginia could potentially lose over $130 million in military construction funding — money that is currently allocated for projects at Dam Neck, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Belvoir, Humphreys Engineer Center, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, and the Pentagon.

Trump said that he expected his contentious national emergency declaration to prompt lawsuits. He remains confident, however, that his decision will be upheld by the Supreme Court, similar to the way his 2017 travel ban was upheld by the court in a 5-4 decision.

“We will have a national emergency and we will then be sued,” Trump said. “Hopefully we will get a fair shake and win in the Supreme Court just like the ban.”

By Jayla Marie McNeill, Capital News Service. Photo via CNS