THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
A4
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Death
penalty a
decision
for voters
The last time Oregon voters had a chance
to decide whether the state could potentially
execute convicted murderers, a majority — 55%
— of those who cast ballots not only answered
yes to that question, but they chose to reserve the
matter for voters in the future by amending the
state Constitution.
But the Democrats who control the Legisla-
ture, by way of supermajorities, have about as
little respect for the sanctity of the Constitution,
on this vital issue, as they do for voters.
Which is to say, essentially none.
Although only voters can change the Consti-
tution, Democratic lawmakers have managed
to largely overrule the voters on the matter of
capital punishment.
The current governor, Kate Brown, and her
predecessor, John Kitzhaber — both Democrats
— certainly showed no inclination to recognize
the will of the electorate. Kitzhaber in 2011
declared a moratorium on executions. This didn’t
exactly halt a parade of death sentences, as Or-
egon hasn’t executed a murderer since 1997.
To his credit, Kitzhaber did support the idea of
asking voters, after more than a quarter century,
to revisit the question on the ballot. That hasn’t
happened.
But the Democrats’ disdain for voters has only
deepened since.
In the 2019 legislative session, they passed
Senate Bill 1013. And Brown signed it into law.
The law signifi cantly constricted the defi nition
of “aggravated murder,” the only crime for which
a person can be sentenced to the death penalty.
But the real problem is that legislators who sup-
ported the bill and who insisted that it would not
be retroactive and could not result in anyone on
death row having a death sentence overturned
were, simply, wrong.
Some prosecutors warned that this was the
case in 2019. And offi cials in the Oregon Justice
Department concluded that the bill could poten-
tially be applied retroactively.
But neither Democratic legislators nor Brown
was persuaded, and Senate Bill 1013 became law.
Now we know precisely how that law can
neuter voters. Recently the Oregon Supreme
Court nullifi ed the death sentence for convicted
murderer David Bartol, specifi cally due to the
new law.
Marion County District Attorney Paige Clark-
son said, in response, that the “practical result” of
the new law is that it has “effectively eliminated
the death penalty in Oregon and thus ignores the
vote of the people who chose to make it the law
since 1984.”
This is unacceptable.
It’s also the result of Democratic legislators
who brazenly thwart the voters they are sup-
posed to represent.
It may be that, 37 years after Oregon voters
endorsed the imposition of the death penalty,
they would decide to either do away with capi-
tal punishment or, as the Legislature did with
Senate Bill 1013, further limit the situations in
which it could be imposed.
But that decision should be made by voters,
not lawmakers.
First, the matter of whether the government
should have the legal authority to end a life is
such a profound exercise of power that a robust
public debate, and vote, is the only appropriate
venue.
Second, capital punishment is part of the state
Constitution, and amendments to that document
are absolutely the sole province of voters.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Why Democrats should be
supporting charter schools
By STEPHEN L. CARTER
Whether the Democratic Party’s
burgeoning opposition to charter schools
will lead to electoral trouble is an open
question, but this much seems clear: As
time passes and evidence piles up, the
party’s position seems not only cruel but
also absurd.
The latest reason? Charter school
attendance turns out to aid a cherished
liberal goal: high voter turnout. That’s
the conclusion of a new paper by the
economists Sarah Cohodes and James
J. Feigenbaum. Girls (not boys) who
attend charter schools are signifi cantly
more likely to vote in the fi rst election
after they turn 18. The voting rate of
parents also jumps after their children
are admitted.
By any measure, this should count as
an unalloyed (and unexpected) benefi t of
charter schools. Still, Democratic opposi-
tion to them remains unbudgeable.
Charter schools were once considered
the sensible compromise between those
who favored giving poor parents money
to purchase private education for their
children and those who opposed any
government-funded alternative to public
schools. As recently as the presidency of
Barack Obama, Democrats strongly sup-
ported them. But during Donald Trump’s
years in the White House, when charter
expansion became a key Republican
priority, Democratic support cratered.
Well, no. Not exactly. What actually
happened was that support among white
Democratic voters collapsed, falling to
26%. At the same time, among Black and
Hispanic Democratic voters, strong ma-
jorities support charters. The progressive
wing of the party has largely abandoned
the once-crucial compromise, and spent
the summer fi ghting to reduce federal
funding for charters.
Yet years of research confi rm the
relative success on most measures of
the better-designed charters: Compared
to those who aren’t admitted, attendees
tend to score higher on standardized
tests, are more likely to fi nish school,
and have a better chance of attending
college. Recent work indicates that the
social skills of attendees improve as well.
They’re less likely than their peers to
commit crimes, use drugs or get pregnant
while in school. All of these are excellent
reasons, for anyone who purports to care
about those the nation leaves behind, to
support charter schools.
This latest study reinforces many of
these fi ndings, but the most important
fi ndings involve the franchise. Previous
work had found charter school students
more likely to vote, but those results were
from schools that picked their students
and emphasized civic duty in the cur-
riculum. The paper, which examines six
elections between 2008 and 2018, fi nds
that voting is more likely even when the
school picks its students by lottery.
The study, released last month, fi nds
no effect on registration. Students from
charters and from other public schools
sign up at similar rates. But turnout is
another matter. So long as they register,
the study says, students at charters are
17% more likely to vote.
Strikingly, this effect is driven entirely
by female students. The most interest-
ing explanation is that girls who attend
charters are more likely than boys to
improve their non-cognitive skills. In par-
ticular, girls but not boys show improved
attendance rates and a higher likelihood
of taking the SAT. The results suggest
that voting behavior is driven not simply
by education but by the attainment of
non-cognitive skills as part of that educa-
tion; and that at least for some students,
charters improve those skills. (1)
All of these are excellent reasons to
increase support for charters, particular-
ly given that recent work shows that the
best of them can replicate their success.
And even if it’s true that the presence of
charter schools slightly increases racial
segregation, as some evidence suggests,
the effect vanishes in large metropolitan
areas. (2)
And here’s a point not to be forgotten:
Putting aside the veritable mountain
of measurables, a signifi cant number of
parents choose charters for what they
believe will be an improved atmosphere.
Fewer gangs, for instance; less drug
use; even just better behavior overall.
Well-to-do parents take for granted their
ability to choose for themselves what sort
of atmosphere their children will thrive
in. Charters at least offer parents who
are less well off a faint echo of the choices
that those of higher income can afford.
So, to review: Charters improve
student academic performance and
non-cognitive skills. Black and Hispanic
Democrats strongly favor them. And
charter attendance increases voter turn-
out. Add it all up, and progressives are
running out of sensible reasons to oppose
charter schools.
(1) Other subgroups — for example,
those receiving subsidized lunches and
those “receiving special education” —
were also more likely to vote.
(2) Another progressive fear is that the
curricula of many charter schools might
be taking a decidedly conservative turn.
This doesn’t distress me, I’ve long been of
the view that public schools exist to aid
parents in the raising and education of
children. Democracy thrives on diversity
of opinion. That I might not choose to
send my children to a particular school is
no argument against the school.
Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg
Opinion columnist. He is a professor
of law at Yale University and was a
clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall.
OTHER VIEWS
Tragedy of untreated mental illness
Editorial from New York Daily News:
“My sister has been failed by the sys-
tem that’s supposed to help her.” So said
Nancy Egegbara, wisely diagnosing the
massive cracks through which Anthonia
Egegbara fell before her untreated men-
tal illness took hold of her and she shoved
Lenny Javier into a No. 1 train last Mon-
day morning. Egegbara is rightly charged
with attempted murder and assault for
the horrifying push and rightly being
held on $100,000 bail — but the demons
in her head were so so wrongly allowed
to fester year after year, the umpteenth
example that New York has become a city
where people in psychological distress
routinely see their conditions metasta-
size, endangering themselves and others.
Often in the wake of such a tragedy,
reporters are forced to search for clues
that a suspect has diagnosed mental
illness, given that federal health-privacy
law zealously guards such information.
In this case, Egegbara’s family put it
plainly, saying that she has schizophre-
nia, for which she has been hospitalized
more than 50 times since her teenage
years. When swallowing her pills, she’s
considerate to others. When off, the re-
sults can be catastrophic. And since she’s
an adult, they say, no one can make her
stay on her meds.
Except that New York has for 22 years
had a law designed to try to solve precise-
ly this problem. Kendra’s Law is named
after a woman killed in a subway push by
a schizophrenic man who refused to take
his medication.
Tragically, rather than preserve or
add beds for people who might need or
be ordered into treatment, New York
State has eviscerated those services.
Kendra’s Law has been invoked too
sparingly, falling from 1,600 people un-
der court order to follow their treatment
plan in 2017 to 1,400 today. And New
York City has rolled nearly a billion dol-
lars a year into a suite of mental-health
programs, ThriveNYC, hardly any of
which focus on helping those beset by
the most crippling conditions.
Insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different
results. This is insanity.