But now Torres is nervous about what 2025 may bring. A lawsuit threatens to unwind the law against immigration jails, and the attorney general’s directive is still not codified into law, meaning that a new official who is more hostile to immigrants’ rights could quickly undo it. And New Jersey is electing many of its state and local leaders this year in a host of races that will test much more than just candidates’ openness to immigration detention.

“Somehow I have been dreading 2025’s cycle for even longer than I did 2024’s,” Torres told Bolts about New Jersey’s upcoming elections. “It’s not guaranteed that we’re going to get the protections that these communities deserve.”

The coming year indeed carries high stakes for policing and criminal justice, in New Jersey and beyond. There will be roughly 160 elections for prosecutor and sheriff this year. Most are concentrated in just four East Coast states—New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Filing deadlines are still months away. But at this early juncture, there are already several elections to keep an eye on including the re-election bids of Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner, the former civil rights attorney turned prosecutor, and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, fresh off prosecuting Donald Trump. This year will also see important elections for prosecutor in Brooklyn and several Virginia cities, as well as sheriff races in Buffalo and New Orleans. (The full list of prosecutor and sheriff races is available here.)

Sheriffs and prosecutors are central to local criminal legal systems, with wide discretion over a large range of issues from sentencing to detention conditions, so Bolts closely tracks them each year. But criminal justice policy also hinges on offices that have broader purviews. This year, New Jersey and Virginia are selecting their state governments. The partisan or ideological majorities on Pennsylvania and Wisconsin’s supreme courts are also on the line.

Plus, dozens of cities are electing their mayors and city councilors in 2025, including places with major recent conflicts over policing like Atlanta, Minneapolis, and New York City.

Today Bolts is launching its coverage of these races by fleshing out six storylines that will define the cycle.

1. How will two prosecutors emblematic of the reform movement fare against national headwinds?

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA who brought Trump to trial this spring on felony charges of falsifying business records, famously secured 34 convictions against him. With Trump now headed back to the White House, this may well remain the only criminal trial Trump sits through. 

This has earned Bragg the intense enmity of conservatives nationwide, who have attacked his prosecution of Trump, as well as his affinities for criminal justice reforms. In 2024, a Republican prosecutor in Arizona even refused to extradite a suspect to New York, citing Bragg’s politics. When he first ran in 2021, Bragg positioned himself as a reformer and courted progressive voters, though his proposals were not as far-reaching as some of his rivals. 

MAGA fury is unlikely to mean much in a Democratic primary in Manhattan, which is the main hurdle standing between Bragg and a second term this year. Despite the New York Post’s negative coverage of Bragg as responsible for crime, he has touted the decline in shootings, homicides, and property crimes in the borough over his time in office. 

And some local progressives have distanced themselves from his policies. Eliza Orlins, a public defender who ran for DA against Bragg in the 2021 Democratic primary, has criticized him for breaking his campaign promises to scale back the tactics that ballooned incarceration locally, such as heavy prosecution of low-level offenses. “The political landscape has shifted significantly since 2021,” she told Bolts. “However, I think there’s still room to shape the debate—especially in races like the one for Manhattan DA,” she added. “Reformers need to push back against the fear-based narratives and ensure that the real impact of policies like bail reform and decarceration is part of the conversation.”

Just 100 miles away, in Philadelphia, Larry Krasner came to embody the “progressive prosecutor” movement after his 2017 victory. He curtailed prosecutions of low-level offenses, restricted the scope of probation, overturned many wrongful convictions, and clashed with police unions for taking a harder line on officer misconduct.

Krasner also comfortably won reelection four years ago despite a major push to oust him, and then also survived a GOP effort to remove him from office. However, as he now approaches his second reelection race, the national context has changed. Losses by high-profile reform DAs in California have put progressives interested in prosecutor reform on the defensive. Krasner may also face several challengers this year, including local judge Patrick Dugan, who recently divulged that he plans to run. 

Heavy spending against California reformers by the tech and real estate industry was a key factor in their losses in the state. And Krasner might have an even bigger target on his back: Last fall, he tried to stop Elon Musk’s electioneering schemes on Trump’s behalf in Pennsylvania. Musk has recently said he wants to fund campaigns against reform DAs, and he spent heavily in a failed effort to oust Austin’s chief prosecutor last year, fueling speculation of new confrontations between Musk and Krasner this year.

2. Can proponents of prosecutor reform keep or expand their footing in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia? (Plus, who will even run?)

Even if the other prosecutors on the ballot this year don’t have such national profiles, their fates still matter for local criminal justice policy.

DA Eric Gonzalez is also up for reelection in Brooklyn, which is the biggest county with a prosecutor race anywhere in the nation this year. A self-proclaimed ‘progressive prosecutor,’ Gonzalez has unveiled policies to shield some immigrants from deportation and dropped cases against hundreds of against sex workers, among other reforms, while also facing criticism from the left for not being bold enough. He ran for a second term unopposed in 2021.

In upstate New York, reformers in 2024 got rid of David Soares, one of their more vocal foils. Soares spent years railing against pretrial reforms as DA of Albany County and former president of the state’s DA association. Reformers have a similar opportunity in 2025 in Orange County, where David Hoovler, another former president of the DA association and critic of pretrial reforms, is up for reelection. Also on the ballot are Nassau County DA Anne Donnelly and Suffolk County DA Raymond Tierney, two Republicans who oversee Long Island’s two populous counties and keep calling for the state to roll back its 2020 bail reform.

In Virginia, a group of 11 reform-minded prosecutors formed an alliance in 2020 to advocate for statewide criminal justice reforms like ending mandatory minimum sentences. But the group’s agenda was sidelined when Democrats lost their governing majority in late 2021. 

Several members of this alliance face reelection in 2025. They include Stephanie Morales, the Portsmouth prosecutor who helped spearhead the creation of the reform alliance five years ago and who clashed with police during Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, as well as Ramin Fatehi, the Norfolk prosecutor who faces critics who favor a more punitive approach to prosecution. If they survive this year, they could reprise their statewide advocacy, but that could also hinge on Democrats regaining control of the state government (more on that below).

Finally, roughly a third of Pennsylvania’s counties are electing their DA, including populous Bucks, Westmoreland, and York counties. As is often the case with prosecutors, the first test will be who even files by the March deadline; in the state’s most recent DA races, in 2023, most races saw a complete lack of competition, with candidates running unopposed across the state.

3. Will sheriff races question the harsh status quo on jail deaths, detention conditions, and collaboration with ICE?

The jail in Buffalo, New York, has drawn lawsuits and scrutiny for the mounting deaths of people in custody. When longtime Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard, a named defendant in these lawsuits, retired in 2021, his preferred candidate, Republican John Garcia, narrowly prevailed in the race to replace him. Deaths have steadily continued in the lock-up under Garcia, and local activists say detention conditions have remained just as gruesome as under Howard. 

In the city of Virginia Beach, an investigation conducted this fall revealed that a man died earlier this year due to the way in which he was restrained by sheriff’s deputies. 

And in Monmouth County, New Jersey, the sheriff’s office was hit by a lawsuit in 2024 that alleged that it was covering up drug-related deaths and overdoses in custody.

Each of these three jurisdictions is electing its sheriff this year, which could at least give local advocates a platform to further expose these detention conditions. And similar questions could surface in the other sheriff’s races taking place in New York and Virginia, plus parts of New Jersey. (Note that Pennsylvania also votes for sheriffs but in that state, as well as in some New Jersey counties, jails are run by the county board and the sheriff’s authority is much more narrow.)

Local detention conditions are also worrying advocates in Louisiana, which adopted legislation last year that is set to balloon local jails. New Orleans, which has a long history of deadly conditions, is the only parish to hold a sheriff’s race this year. Sheriff Suson Hutson, who won with the support of many local reformers in 2021, broke with the other state sheriffs who cheered the 2024 legislation and warned that it would create an “unmanageable population explosion in the New Orleans jail.” 

Sheriffs who run jails also have leeway in deciding how much to collaborate with federal immigration agents; for instance, many get to decide whether to rent out their space to ICE to detain people. Amy Woolard, chief program officer of the ACLU of Virginia, who is tracking how this issue plays out across her state’s 38 sheriff’s races this year, says it’s often difficult to even ascertain where sheriff candidates stand on it. 

“I would ask them, point blank, what are their policies and practices for working with ICE; what are their intentions around protecting immigrant communities in their jurisdictions” Woolard told Bolts. “I think having that knowledge is going to help immigrant communities understand what they may be facing depending on where they live.”

4. How will city elections impact policing? 

This year, 23 cities of at least 250,000 people will elect their mayor, a position that often comes with some control over the local police department. 

The most obvious highlight is the mayoral race in New York City, where incumbent and former police officer Eric Adams is preparing to run for a second term while under indictment on federal corruption charges. 

Under Adams, the New York Police Department has been rocked by incessant scandals and resignations, including over corruption and sexual misconduct allegations. Adams has championed more aggressive police tactics such as adding armed officers to public transit and reviving plainclothes police squads. He has already drawn a wide field of challengers, including a pair of progressive state Senators, Zellnor Myrie and Jessica Ramos, who have each been more critical of the NYPD. The possible candidacy of former Governor Andrew Cuomo may still rock the race. 

Then there’s Atlanta, where Democratic leadership remains locked in a battle with local activists over plans to construct a police training center widely known as “Cop City.” Mayor Andre Dickens has championed the proposal and secured the city council’s approval; these officials also blocked a ballot initiative that would have asked Atlantans to weigh in on Cop City. This year, Dickens is running for reelection; all city council seats are on the ballot as well. 

Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd. Mayor Jacob Frey has agreed to reforms over the years but has drawn scrutiny over their faltering implementation. He has also resisted more ambitious overhauls; he won reelection in 2021 on the same day as voters defeated a proposal to replace the police department, which he vocally opposed. 

Omar Fateh, a progressive state lawmaker who backed the 2021 policing referendum, has announced that he’ll challenge the mayor in 2025 and has signaled that he’ll run to Frey’s left.

Other cities with mayoral elections in 2025 include Boston, where first-term Mayor Michelle Wu promised to reform policing but backtracked on some key commitments like ending a controversial police surveillance center. In Pittsburgh, a mayor who is generally allied with local reformers is up for a second term. In Omaha and Seattle, candidates who ran on growing their local police departments and defeated more left-leaning opponents in 2021 are again on the ballot. Plus, Bolts will track similar dynamics in cities ranging from Buffalo and Cleveland to St. Louis and Oakland. 

5. Will conservatives flip supreme courts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Just two years after a liberal takeover that paved the way for fairer election maps, control of Wisconsin’s supreme court is again on the ballot this spring. An open race to replace a retiring liberal justice, Ann Welsh Bradley, could flip the court back to the right. 

Conservatives have a similar opportunity in Pennsylvania, where three Democratic justices are up for reelection this year; Republicans need to win two of these seats to secure a majority on the court, and their chances largely depend on whether any incumbents retire.

The stakes around control of these courts are most clear around abortion rights, labor issues, and redistricting. But on criminal cases, these supreme courts also hear individual appeals and decide broader questions like the constitutionality of punishments. In Pennsylvania, cases currently on the supreme court’s docket include a challenge to draconian life sentence schemes and a dispute over an effort by Krasner to vacate a death sentence. 

But the Democratic majority on Pennsylvania’s high court has not delivered consistent wins for criminal justice reformers—for instance, declining to consider the legality of the death penalty.

And Wisconsin’s court, typically split by ideological conflicts, is strikingly uniform when it comes to justices’ professional backgrounds. Five of its seven members are former prosecutors; none is a former public defender. The 2025 front-runners, conservative Brad Schimel and liberal Susan Crawford, have both stressed their prosecutorial experiences as a former attorney general and former deputy attorney general, respectively.

6. Who will come to govern New Jersey and Virginia? 

Voters in New Jersey and Virginia will each elect their next governor and lawmakers this year.

Amy Torres, the New Jersey advocate for immigrant justice, says that, depending on who wins Democratic primaries and then the November elections, she could see New Jersey become more acquiescent toward the Trump administration. Or alternatively, she says, “There’s an interesting opportunity for New Jersey to be the voice of what resistance looks like.” She stressed that her state’s outlook feels especially uncertain due to a legal ruling last year that revamped primary ballots and loosened the control of party machines.

One unusual layer to the governor’s race: New Jersey does not elect local prosecutors, so the discretion to set prosecutorial policies rests largely with the attorney general, another office that itself is not elected but rather appointed by the governor. New Jersey has been under full Democratic control since the 2017 elections. 

Meanwhile, Virginia’s government has flipped back and forth during that time, with major ramifications for criminal justice policy.

In their brief stint running the state from 2019 to 2021, Virginia Democrats abolished the death penalty, banned life without parole sentences for kids, and ended prison gerrymandering, among other changes. But their agenda came to an abrupt halt in 2021 with the election of Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican who effectively froze voting rights restoration and parole grants and vetoed other reform legislation. Another Republican, Attorney General Jason Miyares, has also targeted local reformers but lacks legislative allies to preempt their policies. 

These issues are sure to come to a head in 2025. Youngkin is barred from seeking a second term as governor. Miyares is running for reelection as attorney general. And legislative races will decide which party can pursue its priorities, from Democrats hoping to codify voting rights for people with felony convictions to the GOP pushing to ramp up policing of immigrants.

Amy Woolard with the ACLU of Virginia says the 2025 elections could be an opportunity to expand criminal legal reform in her state, but that some of the rhetoric around public safety makes the work tough. “It’s tough to get people to listen to community members inside the legislature. It’s tough to push back against the fearmongering,” she told Bolts.

But she is also excited about a new generation of officials who first came into office in 2023 and whose ranks she hopes expand this year. She said, “They brought with them a kind of excitement, fearlessness, energy around having candid conversations around excessive sentencing, about the racial implications of our criminal justice system.”

The post The Local Elections That Will Define Criminal Justice Policy in 2025 appeared first on Bolts.

While there are roughly 2,200 prosecutors and sheriffs on the ballot this year, there’s not much at stake in this election for most of these offices because they drew just one single candidate. But Bolts has kept track of other important races for sheriff and DA all year to identify and cover the elections that are poised to make the biggest difference for local policy. During the primaries, we covered critical DA races from Ohio to Texas and sheriff races from Florida to Michigan.

And now the general elections are upon us. Below is Bolts’ guide to 33 prosecutor and sheriff elections next month—and some honorary mentions, too.

Arizona | Maricopa County (Phoenix) sheriff

This used to be the office of Joe Arpaio, the far-right strongman who housed detainees at an outdoor camp called Tent City and was convicted of contempt of court for refusing a court order to stop detaining people suspected of being undocumented, only to be pardoned by Donald Trump. Paul Penzone, the Democrat who defeated Arpaio in 2016, resigned from the office earlier this year, and Jerry Sheridan, a former Arpaio deputy, is now trying to win back the office for the GOP.

Sheridan is on the Brady List, a database of law enforcement officers with a history of lying, because a judge found that he lied under oath during a civil rights lawsuit. Sheridan has said he’d bring back some of the most controversial practices from his former boss, Arpaio, including building a new facility like Tent City, which the county tore down in 2017. Tyler Kamp, a former Phoenix police officer who switched parties late last year to run for sheriff as a Democrat, is connecting Sheridan to Arpaio’s record of racial discrimination. 

Arizona | Maricopa County (Phoenix) prosecutor 

Just two years ago, Republican County Attorney Rachel Mitchell narrowly defeated a progressive challenger who ran on curbing the punitive legacy of this office. That was a special election, so Mitchell is already back on the ballot, and this time her challenger has a different message. Tamika Wooten, who ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination, has accused Mitchell of “leniency” toward defendants and faulted her use of diversion programs, The Arizona Republic reports. Wooten’s criticism echoes the attacks made by Mitchell’s primary opponent, who lost by a large margin in August.

On abortion, though, the fault lines in this race align more closely with partisan expectations. When the state supreme court revived an 19 century ban on nearly all abortions this spring, Wooten told Bolts that she would not bring charges under the law, saying, “That is a very serious and personal decision that a person must have with themselves and with their health care provider.” While lawmakers later overturned the 1864 law outlawing virtually all abortion, a ban after 15 weeks remains in place, and Mitchell has refused to rule out prosecuting doctors. She has also fought an effort by the Democratic governor to prevent local prosecutors from charging abortions. 

Arizona | Pima County (Tucson) sheriff

This race erupted in controversy this week after Democratic Sheriff Chris Nanos put challenger Heather Lappin, a Republican who works in the local jail, on forced leave. Nanos alleged that Lappin helped the newsroom Arizona Luminaria, which has long reported on excessive force and inhumane conditions in the Tucson jail, connect with an incarcerated source for pay. Arizona Luminaria has denied that it pays sources, saying it only reimbursed an incarcerated source for costly phone calls from the jail.

Nanos’ leadership over the jail, which has seen a string of deaths during his tenure, has been subject to scrutiny. Moreover, the county board, which is run by Democrats, has for months pressed Nanos for information about sexual assault allegations against a sheriff’s deputy. Nanos and Lappin have largely blamed problems at the office on understaffing, Arizona Luminaria reports. 

The race is unfolding against the backdrop of a GOP ballot measure, on the ballot this fall, that would ramp up the role of sheriffs in patrolling the border. Nanos has steadfastly opposed the measure, and he has said he would not enforce it. He defeated a challenger in the July Democratic primary who argued for tighter relationships with federal immigration authorities. Lappin said during the GOP primary that she supported the measure but has since backtracked.

California | Alameda County (Oakland), and Los Angeles County

Two first-term DAs in California faced near immediate efforts to remove them from office, plus mutinies by staff within their office angered by their reforms. Now each faces a political threat. In Oakland, former civil rights attorney Pam Price won the DA’s office in 2022 on a decarceral platform, and rolled out policies meant to focus on rehabilitation over punishment. But local forces who opposed her election, many of which had just succeeded in ousting San Francisco’s DA next door, quickly organized a recall campaign against her, Bolts reported in August. 

Further south, in Los Angeles, George Gascón made a splash within a day of entering office four years ago, as he rolled out a suite of policies to reduce cash bail and sentencing enhancements. Much like Price, Gascón faced a deluge of controversy and negative press over specific cases that critics said he did not prosecute aggressively enough, and he backtracked on some of his measures, Bolts reported earlier this year. 

Now Gascón faces Nathan Hochman, who is running on bringing back more punitive policies to the office and accuses the incumbent of having “extreme pro-criminal policies,” even as violent crime in Los Angeles is decreasing. Hochman was the GOP nominee for attorney general two years ago, though he is helped in this blue county by the fact that this race is nonpartisan.

California | San Francisco prosecutor

Brooke Jenkins replaced the reform-minded Chesa Boudin as prosecutor in 2022, after Boudin was recalled by voters. As Bolts reported at the time, Jenkins quickly disbanded one of Boudin’s major initiatives, a police accountability unit that had prosecuted killer cops. Jenkins won when she faced voters for the first time two years ago, and is now running for a full term. 

She faces Ryan Khojasteh, a former prosecutor in the office who was hired by Boudin and then promptly fired by Jenkins when she took office. Khojasteh is making the case that Jenkins has gone too far in ramping up punishment for teenagers accused of crimes, proposing a return to more rehabilitative policies. He has criticized her for rolling back diversion programs But he has also tried to distance himself from Boudin and eschew some of his policies. This election is overshadowed by the higher-profile races for mayor and city council, which feature similar debates, and even candidates who are proposing to ramp up policing and arrests on matters like homelessness.

Colorado | Arapahoe County prosecutor, and Douglas County prosecutor

Arapahoe and Douglas, two populous counties south of Denver, have long shared a DA. But as Alex Burness writes in Bolts, come 2025, “similar criminal cases may be met with starkly different responses—depending on which side of [a] new administrative boundary they occur.”

That’s because Colorado recently split its 18th Judicial District in two, separating the liberal Arapahoe County (home to Aurora) from its more conservative neighbor. 

As a result, a reform-minded prosecutor may be coming to suburban Colorado. Democrat Amy Padden is favored over former Republican DA Carol Chambers in Arapahoe County. Padden lost her first DA bid in 2020, when she said she’d work to curb jail terms for low-level offenses and reduce the prosecution of minors as adults. She has kept up these themes this year. “We’re not going to prosecute our way to a safer community,” she told Bolts in July. “The way we reduce crime is to see if there are ways to rehabilitate folks and get them back on their feet.”

Douglas County is likely to head in the opposite direction. The GOP tends to do very well here, so Republican George Brauchler, a former DA with a punitive record, is favored over Democrat Karen Breslin. Brauchler is running on the unusually harsh promise of seeking jail time for anyone who commits any theft, Bolts reported in July. 

Florida | Hillsborough County prosecutor, and prosecutor for Orange and Osceola counties 

Twice since 2022, GOP Governor Ron DeSantis has removed a reform-minded prosecutor from office. The legal battles over whether he had the authority to do this are still ongoing. But the two suspended prosecutors are not waiting for the courts: They’re running to get their jobs back, challenging the people DeSantis appointed to replace them.

In Hillsborough County, home to Tampa, Democrat Andrew Warren faces Republican Suzy Lopez, the DeSantis appointee. Lopez quickly rolled back Warren’s policies, Boltshas reported, canceling a reform he had put in place to curb aggressive policing of Black cyclists in Tampa. In the Orlando metro region, in a circuit that combines Orange and Osceola counties, Democrat Monique Worrell faces DeSantis appointee Andrew Bain, who is running as an independent. This race is marred by a legal complaint that the GOP fielded a sham candidate to help Bain.

Complicating both elections, DeSantis may choose to overturn the elections again if Warren and Worrell win, maintaining Lopez and Bain in office no matter the results. He kept that door open in remarks in September, and some Republicans have said they expect it should voters reject his appointees. 

Georgia | Chatham County sheriff

The Savannah jail, long plagued by allegations of neglect and abuse, has become a flashpoint in the race between Republican Sheriff John Wilcher and Democrat Richard Coleman, a local police chief. 

Wilcher’s campaign has received thousands of dollars from jail contractors, including people associated with CorrectHealth, the jail medical provider targeted by a scathing 2019 investigation into treatment at the jail and at the center of a wrongful death lawsuit alleging poor treatment. Wilcher has also stopped in-person visitations, which Coleman says he will restart if elected; such visits can be an important lifeline for people who are detained.

Many other Georgia sheriffs oversee jails with abusive conditions, though they may not be holding competitive races this fall. Clayton County Sheriff Levon Allen, a Democrat who oversees a jail where deaths keep mounting, is unopposed, for instance. 

Georgia | Cobb County sheriff, and Gwinnett County sheriff

When Democrats in 2020 flipped the sheriff’s offices in Cobb and Gwinnett, two large counties in the Atlanta suburbs, it prompted rapid change in immigration policy: The new sheriffs immediately fulfilled a campaign promise to cancel their counties’ participation in ICE’s 287(g) program, which deputizes local sheriff’s officers to act as federal immigration agents. 

But Georgia Republicans this year retaliated with a new law that requires sheriffs to apply to join 287(g), and hold people suspected of being undocumented when ICE requests it.

The law shrinks sheriffs’ discretion. But Priyanka Bhatt, an attorney with Project South, an organization that advocates for immigrants’ rights in Georgia, says sheriffs still have room to minimize ICE’s footprint, if they so choose. Even if a sheriff’s office is forced to enter into a 287(g) contract, she told Bolts, it can still refrain from proactively interrogating or arresting immigrants. “The way in which the sheriffs implement 287(g) is under their control,” she said.

The first-term Democratic sheriffs are now running for re-election. Cobb County Sheriff Craig Owens, who has spoken out against the new law and said he wouldn’t devote resources to 287(g), faces Republican David Cavender, who says he’d partner with ICE more closely and has echoed Trump’s rhetoric about the “open southern border.” Gwinnett County Sheriff Keybo Taylor faces Republican Mike Baker, who has made fewer public statements and who did not respond to Bolts’ request for comment on his views on immigration. 

Georgia | Chatham County prosecutor, and Clarke and Oconee counties prosecutor

The Georgia GOP adopted a law last year that threatens to remove DAs from office if they adopt a policy to not charge certain types of cases, such as abortion or marijuana. Critics denounced the law as an effort to target a swath of new Democratic officials, mainly women of color. To sign the law, Governor Brian Kemp traveled to Savannah, home of DA Shalena Cook Jones, who ran on expanding diversion programs locally and has defended reforms from Kemp’s attacks.

Republicans also signaled that they hoped to use the law to target Deborah Gonzalez, the DA of Clarke County (Athens) and Oconee County, who’d quickly rolled out some reforms such as ending marijuana prosecutions after winning office. 

The new law hasn’t yet been used to remove a DA. But Cook Jones and Gonzalez are now running for second terms, fighting off complaints that they’ve neglected the duties of their office, and saying they would continue their approach. Cook Jones faces Republican Andre Pretorius, with whom she is trading accusations of misconduct. And Gonzalez is facing Kalki Yalamanchili, a former prosecutor who is running as an independent.

Illinois | DeKalb County prosecutor, and Lake County prosecutor

In eliminating the use of cash bail last year, the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act also made prosecutors the gatekeepers of bail reform, Bolts explained this spring. Proponents say they now hope that prosecutors will implement the law in good faith, though some prosecutors have been clear that they’ll do what they can to maximize pretrial detention. 

The debate is playing out in two prosecutor races this fall. In Lake County, a populous suburb just north of Chicago, State’s Attorney Eric Rineheart was one of very few prosecutors who backed ending cash bail. Four years after ousting a GOP incumbent, he faces Republican Mary Cole, who has centered her campaign around her opposition to the Pretrial Fairness Act, saying it endangers public safety. (Data shows that crime has not increased since its implementation.)

West of Chicago, in DeKalb County, GOP State’s Attorney Rick Amato is retiring this year after spending the last few years fighting bail reform. Republican Riley Oncken is continuing Amato’s strategy of blaming Democrats for crime, while Democrat Chuck Rose says the law is working. 

Kansas | Johnson County prosecutor, and Johnson County sheriff

Kansas’ most populous county voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 for the first time since 1916. Sheriff Calvin Hayden, a Republican, did not take it well, and spent the following years amplifying lies about the 2020 results and investigating unfounded allegations of fraud. GOP voters responded by kicking him out in their August primary, which he lost to Doug Bedford, a former undersheriff. 

Bedford is now running against Democrat Byron Roberson, the Prairie Village police chief. In 2010, Roberson shot and killed a woman with a history of mental illness, Susan Stuckey, in her apartment. The local DA’s office declined to prosecute, but the family demanded answers and had to sue to obtain records that raised questions about the police response. As he runs for sheriff, Roberson has said the events made him more aware of a need for mental health professionals to respond to 911 calls. 

The DA who decided to not prosecute Roberson at the time, Republican Steve Howe, is still in office and he has faced more recent accusations of glossing over police shootings; one investigation showed that he provided a false account of a 2018 shooting. This fall, Howe is seeking a new term against Democrat Vanessa Riebli, a former prosecutor in his office.

Riebli narrowly won the Democratic primary over a defense attorney who campaigned on a more progressive platform, while she focused on administrative restructuring like changing how cases are assigned in the office. She is also running on a promise to guard reproductive rights. One question is whether Hayden’s actions stain Howe: The DA has faced criticism within his own party for not speaking up against the sheriff’s endless and baseless investigation into local elections.

Michigan | Macomb County prosecutor

Peter Lucido faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment while he served in the Michigan legislature. After he became Macomb County’s prosecuting attorney in 2021, an investigation found that he had behaved inappropriately toward women working in his new office. 

Lucido, a Republican, now faces Democrat Christina Hines, who has worked as a prosecutor in neighboring counties. In 2021, shortly after Eli Savit became the reform-minded prosecutor of Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), Hines joined Savit’s office and helped develop a restorative justice program. Last year, she published an article that defended restorative justice as a rehabilitative tool that also brings more closure for victims. But as she runs in Macomb County, which Trump narrowly carried twice, Hines has distanced herself from some of Savit’s major policies, such as his decision to stop seeking cash bail, Michigan Advance reports.

Even so, CPAC, a prominent conservative conference that Lucido has attended, attacked Hines this summer with a social media ad associating Hines with George Soros, the billionaire whose super PAC has helped liberal prosecutors win office, calling her part of a “radical plan to fundamentally change Michigan, and ultimately our country.” Hines has denied any direct association with Soros, focusing her campaign on Lucido’s ethical issues, from the many allegations against him to his decision to celebrate Confederate General Robert E. Lee. 

Michigan | Oakland County prosecutor, and Ingham County prosecutor

Two counties east of Detroit feature Democratic prosecutors running for second terms. 

The race in Oakland County will be this year’s clearest test for criminal justice reform in Michigan. Karen McDonald, a self-described “progressive prosecutor,” has expanded diversion programs, and she has helped some people who were sentenced to life without parole as children apply for resentencing. Her Republican challenger, Scott Farida, is a former prosecutor who says the office should be harsher toward defendants.

In Ingham County (Lansing), Democrat John Dewane was appointed prosecutor in late 2022 after his predecessor Carol Siemon resigned. Siemon had implemented reforms to reduce incarceration, including limiting firearm possession charges and refusing to seek life without parole for people accused of murder. Dewane rolled back her reforms when he took office.

The county is blue enough that Dewane is the clear favorite to win a full term next month. But the race is still worth watching because of who the GOP nominee is: Norm Shinkle played a starring role in one of the moments where Trump came closest to overturning the 2020 election results. As one of the four members of the State Board of Canvassers that fall, Shinkle refused to certify the results, amplifying Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud. Michigan is intimately familiar with what a law enforcement official willing to entertain election conspiracies can bring: Just an hour west of Lansing, a sheriff has kept investigating the 2020 election. 

New York | Albany County prosecutor

David Soares, a vocal foe of criminal justice reform and the DA of New York’s capital county for two decades, lost in the June Democratic primary to local attorney Lee Kindlon. But he did not concede and he is now mounting a write-in campaign to secure a sixth term.

Bolts reported this summer that Soares has used his bully pulpit to attack a suite of reforms passed by Democrats, most notably the landmark changes to New York’s bail system and a law that raised the age for charging people as adults from 16 to 18. Kindlon is more supportive of the reforms, and he has accused Soares of fearmongering. Albany progressives who back Kindlon say they hope that the election fosters more attention to rehabilitation and diversion efforts, especially for young people. 

Ohio | Hamilton County (Cincinnati) prosecutor 

Four years ago, Republican Joe Deters held on to this prosecutor’s office after beating Fanon Rucker, a Black Democrat who told Bolts this year that racist messaging against him contributed to his loss. But Deters joined the state supreme court last year, and was replaced as prosecutor by Republican Melissa Powers, who has emulated his rhetoric. She has said that, if she loses, Cincinnati will transform into “a Baltimore, a Saint Louis,” she has called for maximizing prison terms, and she has joined the police union in attacking local judges as “woke”, particularly juvenile court judges that she claims are too lenient. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that a decrease in youth crime belies the fearmongering against judges.

Powers faces Democratic challenger Connie Pillich, a former lawmaker and an unsuccessful candidate for governor. Pillich’s campaign has not focused on proposing criminal justice reforms; as a lawmaker last decade, she sponsored legislation to roll back a reform meant to rule out prison for some nonviolent charges. She has also blamed Powers and prior GOP prosecutors for crime in the county; Democrats have not held this office since the 1930s even as they have taken firm control of the rest of the county government.

Ohio | Hamilton County (Cincinnati) sheriff

Voters in Cincinnati are also choosing their sheriff. Democrat Charmaine McGuffey is running for re-election in a rematch against her predecessor, Jim Neil. McGuffey ousted Neil in the 2020 Democratic primary in a tense race. McGuffey, who had worked under Neil, alleged that Neil fired her because she’s gay and because she warned about abuse in the jail. She also faulted Neil’s cooperation with ICE and said she’d reduce the overcrowded jail. While the jail population decreased slightly during the pandemic, it still remains well above capacity.

This year, Neil is running as a Republican. He says he wants to resist the “agenda of the Democratic Party” to “not support law enforcement,” and has complained that the county is flying the Pride flag on public buildings. He also says the office could detain still more people, and that it has room to hold immigrants, including by shipping detainees out of the county.

Ohio | Portage County sheriff

Some conservative sheriffs have involved themselves in elections, engaging in yearslong investigations of the 2020 results and setting up task forces to police voting. Enter Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski, who in September drew widespread condemnation when he called on county residents to “write down all the addresses” of people with yard signs for Kamala Harris. 

He made those remarks in a xenophobic social media post that used the term “locust” to describe undocumented immigrants. 

Jon Barber, Zuchowski’s Democratic opponent this fall, denounced the sheriff’s remarks, telling Bolts, “I don’t know how it could be interpreted as anything else but voter intimidation.” Barber also took issue with Zuchowski’s “derogatory” attitude toward immigrants, saying, “I don’t know anyone who’s in the United States who does not have some immigration lineage.” Zuchowski is also facing allegations that he forced people held at his jail to work for his reelection campaign. 

South Carolina | Charleston County prosecutor and sheriff

During her 17-year tenure as Charleston’s prosecutor, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson has faced complaints of widespread racial inequalities. Four years ago, she narrowly beat a Democrat who promised to conduct a “racial audit” of the office to address disparities. But the dynamic in this year’s campaign is very different.

Wilson’s Democratic challenger, David Osborne, is a former prosecutor Wilson demoted in 2021 because he sent an email to a defense attorney mocking the office’s mandatory training on racial equity and unconscious bias, The Post and Courier reports. The defense attorney was representing someone charged during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020; Osborne has since accused Wilson of letting down police and not prosecuting protesters aggressively enough. Still, Thomas Dixon, a pastor and prominent local Black activist who has long denounced Wilson for not holding law enforcement accountable for shootings or in-custody deaths of Black people who die in custody, has said he’d welcome change in the office.

Charleston voters did force some turnover in 2020—just not in the prosecutor’s race. Sheriff Al Cannon, a Republican who’d held the office since 1988, lost to Kristin Graziano, a Democrat. Upon taking office, Graziano immediately fulfilled a campaign promise to reduce collaboration with ICE, terminating the county’s participation in the agency’s 287(g) program and refusing to hold people for ICE without a judicial warrant. Prominent Republicans have since attacked her for not detaining immigrants, using the Trumpian strategy of equating immigration and crime. 

Graziano in November faces Republican Carl Ritchie, who has indicated he’d toughen office policies toward people suspected of being undocumented.

Texas | Harris County (Houston) prosecutor and sheriff

A Democratic primary in March already shook up Houston’s DA office: Sean Teare, a former prosecutor in the office, defeated eight-year incumbent Kim Ogg. When a 2017 court ruling held that local bail policies were unconstitutional because defendants were routinely jailed simply for being poor, local officials reformed how the county handles pretrial detention for misdemeanors, but Ogg strongly opposed those changes. Teare defended bail reform while challenging Ogg, and he told Bolts that Ogg had created a “culture of fear” in her office that made her staff overcharge some cases and remain too reliant on pretrial detention.

Now Teare faces Republican Dan Simons, another former prosecutor in the DA’s office who, like Ogg, is accusing misdemeanor bail reform of endangering public safety and misrepresenting the changes in bail policy that followed the court ruling. During his time at the office, some coworkers questioned Simons’ ethics, Houston Landing reported, with one junior prosecutor claiming he told her to lie to a defense attorney to force a plea deal. Democrats have grown stronger in Harris County in recent years, and are now generally favored to win, but some countywide races have remained tight.

If he wins the DA’s office, Teare could have an ally in Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, a Democrat who embraced the bail changes and some other reforms, but who is also overseeing jails that are rife with abuse and deaths. Gonzalez is also up for reelection this year, facing Mike Knox, a former Houston police officer who wants to ramp up policing and join ICE’s 287(g) program, which Gonzalez left in 2017. 

Texas | Travis County (Austin) prosecutor

Another reform-minded prosecutor won in Texas’ March primaries. Travis County DA José Garza beat an expensive challenge funded by tech interests and Elon Musk backing attorney Jeremy Sylestine, who made the case that Garza’s policies were endangering Austin. “We scored a major victory for our progressive movement and for criminal justice reform,” Garza said on election night. Garza now faces Republican Daniel Betts, who is campaigning on a similar message as Sylvestine. Travis County is a lot bluer than Harris County, making any race there an uphill climb for the GOP. 

Garza, who has been a foil of Texas GOP officials, also faced a separate effort to toss him from office this year when a county resident filed a legal complaint against him, taking advantage of a new state law providing for the removal of prosecutors who refuse to prosecute certain charges. A GOP prosecutor assigned to investigate the complaint recommended that it not move forward this summer, though a local judge has still kept the case alive.  

Texas | Tarrant County (Fort Worth) sheriff

Fort Worth’s local jail has seen a surge of deaths during the tenure of Sheriff Bill Waybourn. Local organizers have long been demanding an investigation into Waybourn’s practices and accountability over the deaths, and Bolts reported this week that he appears to be flouting a state law dictating oversight, sparking the attention of the state agency that regulates jails.

Waybourn has also ramped up immigration enforcement and helped set up a county task force to police elections.  

Waybourn, who is a Republican, is facing Democratic challenger Patrick Moses, who accused the sheriff during a public forum earlier this year of “neglecting the people that are dying in the jail,” Bolts reported. Tarrant County, one of the nation’s largest jurisdictions, has historically voted Republican but grown more competitive in recent years—a political shift that itself has fueled far-right conspiracy theories about voter fraud.

Washington | Pierce County (Tacoma) sheriff 

The 2021 death of Matthew Ellis, a Black man who was hog-tied by the Tacoma police and a Pierce county sheriff’s deputy, sparked a state investigation into local law enforcement and led to the passage of a ban on hog-tying this year. Even as he faced scrutiny, Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer stood by the practice and was the only sheriff to defend it to the attorney general. Troyer also faced a scandal within months of taking office in 2020 for calling the police on a Black newspaper carrier, sparking reform calls from state Democrats. 

Troyer is retiring this year, and two candidates hope to replace him. Keith Swank, a former Seattle police officer, is a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2022 on a platform of cracking down on immigration and blaming crime on “anti-police activists.” Patti Jackson, who currently works in the sheriff’s office, is endorsed by local Democrats and says she’d pursue “progressive initiatives” to address the “root causes” of crime. She’s also touting Troyer’s endorsement.

Leslie Cushman, an advocate with the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability, a group that helped champion the ban on police hog-tying, told Bolts she’ll demand reforms from whoever wins, including pushing for deescalation policies, changing how mental health calls are handled, and barring police traffic stops for minor infractions—a reform other jurisdictions are considering this election.

And the list goes on | Some honorary mentions

Chicago is poised to elect Eileen O’Neill Burke as its new prosecutor after she squeaked out a close Democratic primary win and is now heavily favored in the overwhelmingly blue Cook County. It’s the same dynamic in Ohio’s blue Franklin County, home to Columbus, where Democrat Shayla Favor, who won a tight Democratic primary for prosecutor campaigning on what she called a “progressive vision for public safety,” now faces Republican John Rutan, who shares conspiracy theories about elections and 9/11 and has been disowned by the local GOP. 

In another blue county, Atlanta DA Fani Willis is poised to win re-election; she’s still prosecuting Trump while running against one of his former lawyers, Courtney Kramer. 

Savit, the prosecutor in Ann Arbor, is running for re-election unopposed and he is bound to gain a new ally: Alyshia Dyer, a social worker, who won a tight primary to become the next sheriff of Washtenaw County. Bolts reported that Dyer has put forth a progressive platform, including ending low-level traffic stops, and she is now unopposed in the general election. Other unopposed candidates include Dar Leaf, a far-right Michigan sheriff in Barry County, Michigan, who has kept investigating the 2020 election, and Greg Tony, the sheriff of Broward County, Florida, who rolled back a reform shortly after being appointed to the office by DeSantis.

Elsewhere still, Miami is electing a sheriff for the first time in decades. In Clay County, Florida, a sheriff who was ousted in 2020 after allegations that he wrongfully detained a mistress—he was later acquitted— is attempting a comeback. In Wisconsin’s swing Kenosha County, the site of the Black Lives Matter protests during which Kyle Rittenhouse shot three men in 2020, the deputy DA (Democrat Carli McNeill) who authored the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse faces Republican Xavier Solis, an attorney who represented a foundation that raised money for his legal defense. 

Bolts is also watching prosecutor races that could be competitive in Florida’s Palm Beach County, New York’s Westchester County, New Hampshire’s Hillsborough County, and Texas’ El Paso County, as well as sheriffs races in Genesee County (Flint), Michigan and San Francisco.

The post The 33 Prosecutor and Sheriff Elections that Matter to Criminal Justice in November appeared first on Bolts.

In 2005, David Soares’ arrival to the Albany County district attorney’s office marked a victory for criminal justice reformers in New York’s capital county. Backed at the time by the progressive Working Families Party, Soares railed against the harsh mandatory minimum sentences imposed by the state’s notorious Rockefeller drug laws, ultimately landing 55 percent of the county’s vote. 

Two decades later, Soares is still in office, but his persona has changed markedly. He has used his pulpit in recent years to attack a trio of criminal justice reforms passed by New York’s Democratic legislature, and to pressure lawmakers sitting in the New York State Capitol, which is just a few minutes from his office by foot, to undo them.

Legislation that reformed the state’s bail and discovery laws, and raised the age at which young people can be prosecuted as adults, “sent the wrong signal to criminals; a green light,” Soares wrote in testimony submitted to a legislative hearing on criminal justice last February. His message in recent years, which has garnered support from tough on crime conservatives, has been consistent, drawing a direct line between these reforms and violent crime in Albany County. 

As president of the state’s influential DA association in 2018 and 2019, Soares became one of the state’s most vocal opponents of these changes. Since their adoption, he has helped lead a steady rhetorical drumbeat against them, undergirding a series of rollbacks that have attracted support from politicians of both parties. 

Next week, in the county’s Democratic primary, Soares faces a challenger with a different perspective on justice reform in New York. While longtime criminal defense attorney Lee Kindlon doesn’t shy away from pointing out high rates of violent crime in Albany County, and says the reforms in Soares’ crosshairs are imperfect, he has also seen their positive impact firsthand and doesn’t blame them for crime in Albany. 

Kindlon says Soares’ opposition to these policy changes is off-base, and a distraction from a larger problem. “I think he assails the system as a way to just have somebody to blame for his own failures,” Kindlon told Bolts. “I mean, I really just think it’s a cynical ploy to rail against these reforms, because he’s out of good ideas.” 

Throughout his campaign, Soares has painted himself as a voice of reason that won’t hesitate to continue his crusade against a legislature that he believes has endangered communities through its embrace of reforms.

“All in all, the implication that you can’t implement the laws, take note of their effect, then critique them, is absurd,” Soares told Bolts in a statement. 

The Albany County Democratic Committee withdrew its endorsement of Soares earlier this year, though it hasn’t endorsed Kindlon. This time, the Working Families Party, the group that was once a Soares ally but has also fiercely championed the state reforms he’s opposed, is backing his challenger.

Kindlon jumped into the race this spring as an alternative to the incumbent, after news broke that Soares had awarded himself a $23,000 bonus using grant funding from the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). After a flurry of press attention, Soares returned the cash, but defended his choice to take the funds in the first place, arguing that using the grant to give himself and other staff bonuses had been approved by DCJS. 

Kindlon, who previously lost a challenge to Soares in 2012, saw the funding snafu and decided this was his moment to offer Albany an alternative. 

On the campaign trail, he points out the controversial bonuses along with what he says is a staff retention problem in the DA’s office. But Kindlon also differs from Soares in his view of criminal law reforms and the role of a DA in carrying them out.

Local Democratic officials have split their endorsements since Kindlon’s entry into the race. While Soares has the support of law enforcement unions and Democratic County Sheriff Craig Apple, Kindlon has been endorsed by Albany County Executive Daniel McCoy, and by Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan, who announced she was backing him in May “because we deserve a District Attorney who follows the law, regardless of whether they agree with that law.”

Anita Thayer, a longtime Albany attorney and former secretary of the Working Families Party’s capital district chapter, is similarly concerned about Soares’ positions on reform. “The legislature has done a lot to pass good progressive criminal justice laws, and we need a district attorney that’s going to work to implement the laws and work to get the resources he or she needs to implement the laws,” Thayer said. 

“We don’t need someone that spends that time simply bashing the legislature,” she added. 

Some of Soares’ recent criticism has focused on the state’s “Raise the Age” law, passed in 2017. The law increased the age at which a child can be prosecuted as an adult from 16 to 18, bringing New York into line with the majority of states in the country. Since then, critics like Soares have said the law lacks clarity and creates a lack of accountability for young people who commit crimes.

“Raise The Age is the gentle parenting public safety policy for those in most need of the serious intervention teenagers need,” Soares told Bolts in a written statement. “As far as ‘programming’ to fully implement Raise the Age, we used to have a program that would stop teenagers headed to drive-by shootings. It was called ‘removal from the community.’ Short of that, I don’t think anything will work to stop the incessant violence among 16 and 17-year-olds in the inner city.”

In July 2023, Soares called on the legislature to amend the law and remove hurdles to charging young people with violent felonies. Weeks later, Republican Assemblyman William Barclay cited Soares when he introduced a bill to roll back Raise the Age. 

Soares’ critiques of the state’s recent criminal justice reforms echo those from members of both parties, as well as many other prosecutors, sheriffs, and police leaders in the state. Ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, opponents of these reforms leveraged concerns about crime in New York state to successfully push the legislature to amend the 2019 bail reform law, which eliminated cash bail for most misdemeanors and some nonviolent felony charges, as well as discovery reform, which change the rules for how prosecutors must share evidence with the defense in a case. 

In 2022, Republicans’ gubernatorial nominee Lee Zeldin also routinely highlighted incidents of violent crime throughout the state, while voters in both parties polled that year cited crime as their top concern. It was a message echoed by New York Republicans, who flipped several congressional seats. Zeldin came within five percentage points of Hochul in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.

But Kindlon believes the attacks on bail reform are misguided. 

“I don’t think that bail reform is the danger that Soares wants to turn it into,” he said. “It’s not the primary driving force in crime here in Albany County.” Kindlon also noted that the county’s violent crime problem long preceded bail reform, and that judges still have and exercise ample discretion to set bail for people accused of violent crimes. 

A recent study from neighboring New Jersey, which largely eliminated cash bail in legislation passed in 2014 and enacted in 2017, found bail reform did not increase gun violence in the state. These findings square with research in New York City that found no increase in arrests of people who were granted supervised release rather than being held on cash bail, and had no negative effect on court appearance rates.

For Lukee Forbes, a longtime Albany activist and executive director of the youth empowerment organization We Are Revolutionary, getting Soares out of office is personal. At 15 years old, he was prosecuted by Soares’ office for providing two other teens with a tree limb used to assault a University of Albany professor. Forbes, who ultimately served seven years in prison, tells Bolts he struggled as a teenager with the death of his mother, running away from home repeatedly, skipping class, and turning to substances to cope. When he was locked up as a teenager, Forbes says he felt “like the system was punishing me for my trauma.” That’s a pattern he continues to observe in the capital region—struggling teens facing prosecution from Soares’ office, rather than getting the support they need to succeed.

Following the enactment of Raise the Age, 16- and 17-year-olds facing felony charges had their cases heard in a newly-created “youth part” of the criminal court system, and 16- and 17-year-olds with misdemeanor charges were automatically funneled into family court, where punitive resolutions are less severe than criminal court. When the cases of teens facing felony charges are heard in the “youth part,” prosecutors have an opportunity to argue whether the case should stay in the criminal court system or be moved to family court. Between 2019 and 2023, the majority of 16- and 17-year-olds arrested in Albany had their cases transferred to family court or probation, but that percentage has mostly declined over time, according to data from DCJS.

“What I see from his office personally, I can’t ignore,” Forbes told Bolts about Soares’ charging decisions. “I see them taking advantage of a community that has a lack of understanding of the law, I see them taking advantage of family members who just want to get back home, I see them taking advantage of young people, of people who just don’t understand what is going on.”

In Albany County, Black people comprise roughly 14 percent of the population, but 44 percent of felony adult arrests. Doctor Alice Green, a lifelong advocate for racial justice and criminal justice reform in the county, is particularly concerned about how Black teens are being treated by Soares’ office, and says Soares, who is Black, has alienated a community that once supported him. “There has been concern in the Black community about how he treats Black people,” said Green, who is also Black. “There’s a mistrust there.”

Soares, however, insisted that Green doesn’t speak for Albany’s Black community, and told Bolts she “represents the political interests of defendants and white liberals.” 

Rather than leveraging the potential of Raise the Age to divert even more young people out of the adult system, Green says, Soares continues to insist dangerous young people should be funneled into adult facilities. “All the research tells us that if you put a kid into a secure facility or a prison, that they are going to eventually come back and recidivate and cause more damage, and they’re going to be harmed mentally,” said Green. 

Green says the county is failing to make use of state funding provided for diversion programs, and wants to see more cooperation between the DA’s office and other county offices and local nonprofits that serve kids. 

Forbes says he wants the DA’s office to do a lot more to confront the root causes of crime: “We need to really focus on addressing why kids are moving towards guns in the first place, versus just locking kids up and sentencing them to adult time.”

But Soares says that the failure to prevent kids from both perpetrating and being victimized by gun violence rests with legislators. 

“I still believe in second chances, and fairness, but as I did in 2004, I believe Black children should be able to learn and play without bullets whizzing past their heads on a regular basis,” Soares told Bolts in an emailed statement. “Holding gun-wielding teens accountable is a common-sense way to aid in that cause, which shouldn’t be controversial.” 

In spite of his opposition to Raise the Age, Soares has supported some new alternatives to incarceration and programming intended to help people with criminal convictions successfully reintegrate into the community. In 2017, he announced a “clean slate” initiative that diverted 16- to 24-year-olds with nonviolent felony convictions into a program designed to support them in finding work and staying in school, ultimately sealing their records if successfully completed. At the same time, Soares has blamed bail and discovery reform for decreased participation in diversion programs such as drug courts. 

Kindlon agrees with Soares on one thing: Gun violence in the county is a big problem. If he takes the helm of the DA’s office, Kindlon says he’ll focus on charging people and groups who funnel guns into the state, attempting to stem the tide of gun violence with conspiracy cases. Now, he says, the office is too focused on going after individuals.

“The main focus of gun prosecution here in Albany County is the young man with the gun and a car,” said Kindlon. “So they grab that guy, they grab the gun, they force him into a plea, and then it’s done.”

Kindlon also says he’s eager to invest the office’s resources in pretrial diversion programs, particularly for young people like those he has represented. He concedes that Raise the Age isn’t perfect and says he hopes the legislature will ultimately amend the law. But in the meantime, he thinks clarity about how to apply the law should come from litigation in the state’s appellate courts, which he would file if elected DA.

 “I would love for legislators to clear up some of the language and give some more guidance,” said Kindlon. “But in the absence of that, I understand that that’s what the courts are for.”

The DA’s office isn’t short on resources, particularly after the adoption of the laws Soares so fervently attacks. After the passage of discovery reform, Hochul secured $40 million to offset the costs of adapting to the law’s requirements. More than $2 million of that funding went to the Albany County DA’s office between 2022 and 2024, according to data shared with Bolts by DCJS, which administers the funding. 

Soares dismissed this investment as inadequate to address the burden imposed by the law. “Discovery reform has achieved nothing but the reduction of staffing in prosecutors’ offices,” he told Bolts. “No matter how much funding is thrown at discovery reform, it still burdens a prosecutor with administrative tasks as opposed to furthering investigations.

DA offices statewide also received a massive boost in “aid to prosecution” funding from the state in the last year. While in fiscal year 2022-2023 Albany County’s DA office received $176,540, that number soared to $943,253 in 2023-2024. Over the same time period, the office received a $400,000 boost in funding through Hochul’s Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative. 

Kindlon wants to leverage some of these funds to ensure effective alternatives to incarceration exist.

“We’re Albany County; we’ve got resources, we’ve got brains, we’ve got opportunity,” he said. “Let’s bring together all the stakeholders and the nonprofits who want to see these things work, to community groups who want to see young men and women return to school, to support systems that we can build.”

Forbes believes Kindlon is more open than Soares to engaging in meaningful conversations with him and other concerned community members about how to address the root causes of crime in Albany. But ultimately, he needs to see him in action to believe he has something different to offer.

“We won’t see what a district attorney or any politician is really going to be like until they’re in those offices,” said Forbes. “David Soares was the golden child…and now, he’s flipped the script and is a completely different person.”

The post Albany’s Incumbent DA Battles a Challenger—And State Criminal Justice Reforms appeared first on Bolts.

Practitioners like Pernick need to go town by town, village by village, collecting and cleaning data themselves, often spending hundreds of hours on mundane tasks just to get this basic information. That is, if local election offices are even willing to provide it in the first place. 

School districts across New York are especially prone to discrimination because they often use at-large voting systems that can marginalize residents of color, Pernick explained. But the lack of accessible data poses obstacles to investigating them. “There’s something like 700 school districts across New York and the only way to do an analysis of those school districts is to go one-at-a-time and send an open records request to each one,” Pernick told Bolts. “There could be confusion and delay in responding to requests that could push back even the beginning of an investigation by months.” 

“Because of these challenges in identifying and gathering data, we knew that in some jurisdictions where there is racial discrimination in voting, it would be difficult or even impossible to prove it,” he added. 

Perry Grossman, director of voting rights at the New York Civil Liberties Union, shares Pernick’s frustration at the countless hours his team has poured into data gathering, often dealing with resistant or unresponsive local offices. “I shouldn’t have to threaten to sue counties to get this data,” he said.

The New York Senate passed legislation in January that would mandate a centralized state election database that anyone could access. But the bill has since languished in the Assembly, leaving its champions anxious that the problems may endure well past the next round of elections this fall. 

And the problem extends far beyond New York. Precinct-level election data underpins a world of election analyses. It’s a foundation for Voting Rights Act lawsuits throughout the country. Proving how badly maps are gerrymandered is impossible without this data, since it’s needed to assess districts’ partisanship. It’s also used to make all sorts of maps, graphics and tools of neighborhood partisan trends. And combining precinct partisanship data with demographic, geographic and income data is used to address a wide range of political science questions, including showing that voter fraud claims in the 2020 election were unfounded. 

Yet there is no entity in the United States that records election returns or maintains boundary maps for the country’s 180,000 precincts. Many states don’t even provide this data for the full collection of precincts within their borders. Instead, universities, newsrooms, nonprofits and volunteers collectively spend thousands of hours after every major election gathering it themselves. 

It’s a Herculean task for organizations that are often short on time and resources, and leaves the people who need precinct data at the mercy of individual county or local election offices whose data quality varies drastically. It also burdens underfunded election officials who are inundated with repeated requests for the same data. 

Some states make this process a lot easier than others. For example, Minnesota’s secretary of state’s office posts the entire state’s precinct-level election results together on its website; it also provides digital maps of precinct boundaries, called shapefiles. 

The variation between states was captured in dramatic visual form in a project published by The New York Times after the 2020 election. A team of journalists, data scientists, and developers set out to produce a map of U.S. precincts, color-coded by how each voted. 

Four states on the map—Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, and Virginia—are completely blank, as are large swaths of Idaho, Kentucky, and Missouri.

It took The Times three months of full-time data and software development work to assemble the data after the election, plus months of preparation ahead of election night, according to Miles Watkins, who helped manage the project. “As of when we published the nationwide map, I feel pretty confident that we were using every single piece of open data or FOIA-able information that we could,” he told Bolts. But even with that effort, one of the best-staffed publications in the nation wasn’t able to obtain the data to complete the map. 

Ultimately, over 10 percent of all votes cast in the election weren’t pictured in the map.

One problem that proved intractable was that some counties report a combination of their mail-in, early, and provisional ballots as one lump total, rather than distributing them based on where voters reside at the precinct-level. This practice prevents analyses of voting patterns at a more granular level, as was the case in the four completely blank states in The Times’ map.

Zach Mahafza, an analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center who investigates voting rights violations in the South, says this lack of precinct data often stalls his efforts. In 2021, he was part of a team looking into the city council map of Mobile, Alabama. The 2020 Census showed that Mobile was majority-Black. But  there were only three majority-Black districts in their seven-district city council map. Stand Up Mobile, a local voting rights organization, enlisted Mahafza and the SPLC to see whether a new council map could be drawn with at least four majority-Black districts where Black residents would have a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. They needed precinct level election returns and precinct maps for the project.

The city of Mobile provided maps in PDF format, forcing Mahafza to jump through various hoops to extract reliable data. “We’d have a zoom-in of this precinct in the northern part of the city, and another precinct in the southern part of the city and trying to weave all that back together got very difficult,” he said. He estimated that recreating the city’s maps took him 80 to 85 hours.

Ultimately Mahafza’s team showed that it was indeed possible to draw such a map; they warned local leaders that they may violate the VRA if they failed to ensure that Black voters were fairly represented when they redistricted the map. The city eventually adopted a map that has four districts with voting age populations that are over 53 percent Black.

To show that a map or election system violates the VRA’s ban on racial discrimination, plaintiffs must demonstrate several features about their jurisdiction, including racial polarization among voters; that is, whether different racial groups actually prefer different candidates. Practitioners conduct these analyses by looking at the demographic makeup and election returns of individual precincts and inferring the voting preferences of different populations. “If you don’t have precinct-level election returns, you have no way to show racially polarized voting,” Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, told Bolts.

“We couldn’t enforce the federal or any state voting rights act if we didn’t have precinct-level data,” Greenwood added.

In the absence of centralized information, a number of organizations have cropped up to fill the gap. OpenElections, a volunteer group of journalists and software developers, the Voting and Election Science Team from the University of Florida and Wichita State University, the Redistricting Data Hub and the MIT Election Lab have all poured resources into collecting, standardizing and publishing precinct-level election results or compiling precinct shapefile maps. 

After the 2020 presidential election, while The Times was embarking on their nationwide precinct map, the MIT Election Lab set out to make its own database of the country’s precinct results. It took a dozen computer scientists and political scientists nearly two years to complete this project—just in time to start over again after the 2022 midterms. Only about 10 states had data organized enough to put in their database without much work. For the remaining states, they wrote code to clean data, called county offices to get returns that weren’t posted online, used Optical Character Recognition software to read election returns from PDF files and other images and designed quality control processes to check their work. 

They even found the precinct-level results of a recount in Idaho’s Bonner County from a newspaper picture of numbers written on a whiteboard, recalled Samuel Baltz, a research scientist in the group. 

Tired of hitting a wall after every election cycle, some researchers and lawyers are pushing for reform, demanding that states clean up and post complete precinct-level data in accessible formats.

In early 2018, Kansas data scientist Peter Karman emailed his state representative, Boog Highberger, with just such a proposal. He had just spent months trying to compile the state’s precinct data by calling county offices, wrangling it out of PDF files and tediously matching precinct names between digital maps and spreadsheets. He thought the Kansas secretary of state’s office should be required to publish the data on its website. 

Highberger initiated a bill to address these issues, and Karman provided testimony in both chambers. He even included requests for data formatting: “publish the spreadsheet as a spreadsheet, not as a picture of a spreadsheet,” he implored. Within four months, Karman stood by as Governor Jeff Colyer signed legislation that required the secretary of state’s office to post precinct-level data on its website for all federal, statewide, and legislative races within 30 days of the final election canvass. 

More recently, Connecticut mandated a statewide elections database as part of its new Voting Rights Act; the broader legislation is part of a multistate effort to reproduce voting rights protections that federal courts have eroded. Pernick, the Legal Defense Fund lawyer, said the law’s database component was modeled after the legislative proposal in New York.

The New York bill, which Pernick and Grossman helped draft, would establish a statewide database that would house centralized election data and shapefiles for the entire state, down to the precinct level. Sponsored by Senator Zellnor Myrie, the proposal first passed the Senate in 2022, but didn’t receive a hearing in the state Assembly by the end of that legislative session. 

The reform’s latest version, Senate Bill S657A, is in danger of suffering the same fate, having passed the state’s upper-chamber in January but now stuck again in the House Election Law Committee. The committee is chaired by Latrice Walker, who is also a sponsor of the bill. Myrie and Walker did not return a request for comment. 

In the meantime, people who want New York precinct data have been left to their own devices, compiling the data on their own. Ben Rosenblatt, an independent New York political consultant who has worked on Democratic campaigns in the state, decided to cobble together a statewide precinct shapefile in 2022. He posted his progress on Twitter as he went, announcing it was complete in December 2023 after a year of gathering and cleaning data from each of New York’s 62 counties. The Times’ 2020 mapping project cites Rosenblatt’s work as its only New York data source.

“I’m trying to do it again this year for 2024,” Rosenblatt told Bolts.

Bills with similar provisions have been introduced in Michigan and New Jersey. Florida’s and Maryland’s versions did not move forward by the end of this year’s legislative sessions.

If this type of regulation existed in every state, with each state cleaning and posting their own precinct data in accessible formats, the resources spent on this task by outside groups would change drastically, if not cease altogether. 

Bolts asked Watkins how long his team would have needed to complete the data for The Times’ mapping project under these conditions. It probably would have taken “a few days,” he said. He paused to reflect and then added, “Maybe one week.”

The post Election Data Is Vital to Voting Rights. So Why Is It So Hard to Track Down? appeared first on Bolts.

Editor’s note (Dec. 19): In deciding the case described in this article, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Dec. 19 that the state does not need to release the Board of Parole training documents.

Anthony Dixon was sure the parole commissioners would give him a “fair shake.” As a young man, Dixon was convicted of robbery, gun possession, and murder. After serving his minimum sentence of 30 years, he had extensive evidence of his transformation to present to the New York State Board of Parole. 

“I came into prison at 20, 21 years old and I went before [the board] as a man in my 50s, as a changed person,” Dixon told Bolts and New York Focus. While incarcerated, he developed anti-violence and anti-drug programs and worked toward a college degree. Prison staff wrote letters commending his character and accomplishments. 

The parole board rejected his application anyway—and Dixon said it barely explained why. The decision’s vague phrases and boilerplate language gave no indication of what he could have done differently, he said, and he had no clue how to prepare for his next hearing. It took him two more years of fighting to secure his release.

Since his release, Dixon has helped organize efforts to make New York’s parole system easier for incarcerated people to navigate and more transparent, assailing the board’s bare-bones justifications for its rulings. Now, he and other advocates want to crack down on the board’s opacity.

“This system is killing hope, and in some instances, it does cause some people to take their lives,” said Dixon. “This is not just death by incarceration. It is specifically death by the parole board.”

Over 10,000 people appear before New York’s parole board each year. Hearings are often rushed, lasting an average of 15 minutes. Commissioners are afforded wide discretion in how they decide cases, with little oversight or review. They decide to keep around 60 percent of parole seekers in prison.

New York Focus and Bolts reviewed dozens of parole board decisions and appeals. The decisions run as short as a single paragraph, providing parole seekers little guidance on how to win their release. Many repeat variations of the same vague phrases when denying release, many lifted directly from the state’s parole statute. Applicants are often informed that their release “is not compatible with the welfare of society” for example, without explaining how the board arrived at that conclusion.

“They’re not giving people any clarity about what they can do to obtain parole the next time,” says Michelle Lewin, executive director of the Parole Preparation Project. “They’re not giving individualized reasons for denials, despite the fact that their own internal regulations demand that they do so.” 

The parole board’s lack of transparency creates difficulties for applicants of all stripes. But it especially burdens parole seekers serving lengthy sentences for violent crimes. Despite decades of incarceration, these individuals face the very real possibility of dying in prison, even if they have demonstrated sincere growth and rehabilitation.  

“I think it’s time that we gave people a chance to be productive citizens,” said Assemblymember David Weprin, a Democrat who has introduced legislation to increase the parole board’s transparency, “especially in the case when they’ve shown that … they’re not the same individuals that they were when they committed the crime 20 years ago, 30 years ago.”

Advocates for reform have sought to strengthen board oversight from every angle: legislation like Weprin’s, direct pressure on Governor Kathy Hochul, and cases before the Court of Appeals. 

Last month, Appellate Advocates, a non-profit organization of public defenders, argued before the state’s highest court that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision should release the training documents it provides to board members. The documents include hypothetical decisions and sample language—all materials that parole advocates say could help incarcerated individuals understand how the board makes decisions and how to make the strongest case for release.

DOCCS has resisted, and argued in court that it should be allowed to shield the documents, in a dispute that has dragged on for over five years.

Jose Saldaña, the director of the Release Aging People in Prison campaign, described a similar experience with the board. He spent decades incarcerated in New York, in his case for the attempted murder of an NYPD sergeant when he was 27 years old. Though  he had earned his associate degree and led several restorative justice and victim awareness programs, the parole board denied his release four times.

“We discussed these vague reasons … ‘releasing you at the time would so deprecate the nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law’,” Saldaña said. “What does that really mean?”

“Nobody knows what that means,” Steven Zeidman, director of the CUNY School of Law’s Criminal Defense Clinic, told Bolts and New York Focus. Not even parole commissioners. Zeidman said commissioners apply the same language differently from one another, even when evaluating the same individual. “What’s the message to people inside preparing? How do you prepare?”

New York law requires board members to consider many enumerated factors in their decisions, but the commissioners frequently emphasize the nature of the parole seeker’s offense over their rehabilitation and growth while incarcerated. Their cases are often dismissed with terse lines like “your positive programming to date is noted.” 

Reform-minded lawmakers have long supported Weprin’s bill, the Fair and Timely Parole Act, which would reduce the board’s opacity and limit some of the commissioners’ discretion. The legislation would eliminate the vague statutory language cited in board decisions and require commissioners to explain in “detailed, individualized, and non-conclusory terms” exactly why they decided to deny release. It would also require the board to issue a quarterly report that includes the reasons for each denial, which commissioners were assigned to each case, and how they voted.

The bill would establish a presumption that the board would grant parole once an applicant has served their minimum sentence. To deny release, parole commissioners would have to clearly articulate how a parole seeker threatens public safety.

Weprin, a Democrat, first introduced the bill in 2017. Since then, three separate iterations have died in committee, where the 2023 version now sits. Dixon attributes the icy reception in Albany to upstate conservative legislators — whose constituents disproportionately benefit from employment opportunities in the prison system. “Upstate districts have a vested interest to keep this no-sense institution going,” he said. 

Senator Patrick Gallivan, the chamber’s Republican minority whip, is a former parole commissioner who opposes the Fair and Timely Parole Act. His district encompasses Erie County’s Collins Correctional Facility, a medium-security prison employing hundreds of people. But he said his opposition to the bill has nothing to do with protecting upstate jobs.

Gallivan said the bill would limit the board’s ability to consider negative aspects of the parole seekers’ applications, such as their institutional records. He agrees with reformers that the Board of Parole has too much discretion — but he sees them stretching the rules to grant release, rather than keeping people in prison. Gallivan said that when he was a parole commissioner, he tried to set his biases as a former sheriff and state trooper aside and vote according to the law. He said he wants everyone on the board to do the same. Some commissioners say at their confirmation hearings that they will abide by the law, he said, but “the minute that they got sworn in, they said, ‘I don’t care what the law is. I’m here to release people and I’m going to.’” 

Reform advocates have repeatedly called on Hochul to reform the parole system.  As New York Focus and Bolts have previously reported, the board features zombie commissioners serving long past their terms have expired and a medical parole system that leaves most terminally ill people to die behind bars. The vacancies on the board have long afforded Hochul the opportunity to staff it with reformers. But Wanda Bertram, a spokesperson for the Prison Policy Initiative, said she does not expect Hochul to expend any of her political capital on the issue. Under Republican pressure, she noted, Hochul has supported other rollbacks to criminal justice reforms in recent years.

Hochul has pointed to fluctuations in crime and rearrest rates when backing down from other reforms. But Bertram claims that lenient parole policies don’t undermine public safety. She points to a federal study showing that people who commit violent offenses are the least likely to be rearrested after release. “The safest person you can release from prison is a murderer, especially someone that served 10 to 20 years,” said Bertram. “That’s just what the data shows.”  

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment. 

Frustrated by New York’s legislative and executive branches, parole reformers have turned to the judiciary. The state’s courts have limited power to modify parole board decisions, but advocates hope they will at least compel the board to be more transparent. 

At a November 15 Court of Appeals hearing, Appellate Advocates argued that the state’s Freedom of Information Law mandates the release of the board’s training documents.

DOCCS revealed the existence of the training materials in 2020 when they told Appellate Advocates they were withholding certain documents in response to a records request. Michael Higgins, assistant director of the University at Buffalo Law School Civil Rights and Transparency Clinic, says that administrative agencies routinely prepare interpretations of the law that govern what they do, but they often keep the interpretations secret. “Basically, they make up rules that are written down in their training documents or in manuals that the public can’t access,” he said. He says FOIL requires the release of those documents upon request.

At the hearing, DOCCS argued that FOIL does not extend to the training materials because a parole board lawyer prepared them, shielding them from disclosure under attorney-client privilege. (DOCCS declined to comment due to ongoing litigation.) Appellate Advocates countered that attorney-client privilege covers legal advice on real-world scenarios, not abstract training documents.

While the Court of Appeals has shown signs of a leftward shift on some criminal legal issues, it’s unclear whether the newly reconfigured court will flex its power on behalf of parole seekers. During oral argument, Associate Judge Shirley Troutman, a Hochul appointee, expressed concerns that ruling for Appellate Advocates would foist an “unreasonable burden upon trial courts” handling future disputes over attorney-client privilege. Even Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, the court’s liberal leader, said Appellate Advocates’ arguments had “frightening” implications for attorneys. The court scarcely touched on how its decision would impact incarcerated individuals.

For advocates like Dixon, obtaining the release of these documents would only be a first step. Achieving a truly transparent parole system would require wholesale changes, from data disclosure to board appointment procedures. 

“The matrix itself needs to be dismantled,” Dixon said. “The system has to change because it is criminal what is happening.”

The post “Nobody Knows What That Means”: The Murky Decisions of New York’s Parole Board appeared first on Bolts.

On June 25, 2019, in a nightclub in Woodside, Queens, public defender Tiffany Cabán claimed election night victory as the borough’s newest District Attorney. Backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cabán—a queer Latina woman from Richmond Hill, Queens, who ran on ending mass incarceration and the war on drugs—beamed as the crowd shouted “DSA!” In theory, it was a left-wing victory: Cabán had run among a slate of seven candidates, including Queens Borough President Melinda Katz, and won. But just days later, outstanding provisional and absentee ballots changed the picture. After the final tally, Katz, a moderate and the Democratic party’s favored choice, led by a mere 60 votes. Cabán conceded.

Almost exactly four years later, on June 27, Katz will try to keep her office. This time, her leading opponent in the Democratic primary is a candidate who is nothing like Cabán. Katz faces George Grasso, a former NYPD cop and an administrative judge for criminal matters for Queens Supreme Court who decided to leave the bench more than two years early because he “could no longer keep [his] mouth shut” about the state of the city’s public safety, he told Mother Jones and Bolts. 

The shift in debate in this primary race is the latest example of a broader transformation in the politics of crime and public safety in New York. Instead of a challenge from a leftist like Cabán, the insurgent candidate is Grasso: a man who gleefully calls himself the “anti-Krasner,” a reference to Philadelphia’s progressive district attorney. Grasso is openly advocating for a return to law-and-order approach to policing.

His entrance into a Democratic primary is indicative of a move to the right foreshadowed by New York’s Democratic leaders. Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul have touted tough-on-crime policies, doubling down on critiques of bail reform, and moving away from decarceral solutions. The contours of the Queen’s race is part of a larger national narrative, according to experts: In Democratic cities, like San Francisco and Boston, tough-on-crime rhetoric has become a norm again. Data-driven critiques, and reevaluations of criminal justice policy, have less sway—some Democrats, instead, want to return to the politics of law-and-order.

Grasso started out as a “foot cop” in southeast Queens in 1979. He rose to first deputy police commissioner of the NYPD, a position he held for almost a decade, before, most recently, taking the bench as an administrative judge in the Queens Supreme Court. Often, Grasso mentions his tenure with former New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton, who has endorsed him, as core to his beliefs about policing. He says his priority is to return the DA’s office to the quality-of-life enforcement Bratton embraced—criminalizing lesser offenses such as defacing property and fare evasion that “create conditions conducive to” increased crime and violence. (Grasso was part of the Giuliani-era team that designed the first quality of life strategy for Commissioner Bratton.)

In conversation with Mother Jones and Bolts, Grasso mentions specifically taking on fare evasion. The Friday following the death of Jordan Neely—an unhoused Black New Yorker who was choked to death by another passenger on a subway train car—Grasso took to Twitter, not to express outrage at Neely’s public killing, but to criticize the NYPD for ending warrant checks for violating transit laws, a policy that ended due to overwhelmingly targeting houseless New Yorkers. “WHAT!!!! This is the misguided policy that led directly to Mr. Neely’s death and Mr. Penny’s arrest!” he wrote.

Grasso told Mother Jones and Bolts that if the law had been enforced properly, Neely would have likely have ended up back on Rikers Island. “Maybe they would’ve hooked him up with some kind of mental healthcare or something,” he said. “We know one thing for sure, he would be alive today.” (This year, three people have died at Rikers. Last year was the deadliest in a quarter century, Gothamist reported, with 19 deaths at the jail; six are reported to have been suicides.)

While Grasso extols broken windows policing, he says he wants to prioritize mental health as DA, creating the office’s first mental health bureau and turning Rikers Island into a Bellevue Hospital satellite to treat the majority of the incarcerated population at Rikers who struggle with mental illness. During his judicial tenure Grasso championed alternatives to incarceration, creating diversion programs for teens in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation.

“I really hate the fact that people say, ‘Oh, Grasso’s coming in from the right.’ I’m telling you, I do not consider myself right-wing in any way, shape, or form,” he said. “MAGA makes me wanna throw up.”

Despite that, Grasso has created an independent “Public Safety” party line on the General Election ballot in November to ensure all Queens voters, including Republicans, can vote for him. He’s spoken at both Central Queens and Queens Village Republican clubs in the past few months. He says it was because requests to speak at Queens Democratic clubs were denied.

Grasso’s rhetoric is a “caricature of a Republican throwback,” according to Anthony C. Thompson, a professor of clinical law emeritus of law at New York University and founder of the faculty’s Center on Race, Inequality and the Law. “If we look at history, Katz tacked to the left rhetorically to respond to her opponent [in 2019], so it is a legitimate question to say, ‘Will she tack to the right to respond to Grasso?”

The incumbent Katz is once again backed by the New York Democratic Party stalwarts. She has received $12,500 in donations from Jay Jacobs since 2022, the head of the New York State Democratic Party, and has been endorsed by state officials including U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer and Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez. She has led a fairly moderate reelection campaign focused on straddling the line—attempting to triangulate between reform and harsher crackdowns on crime. Katz has defended her record of getting guns off the street and curtailing retail theft, while also making structural changes to the criminal legal system called for by some progressives.

In May, Katz shared her campaign ad, and tweeted that it is “appropriately titled, ‘Promise’”—a reference to pledges she made to voters when she took office in 2020. Katz has fulfilled some of them. She notably created a wrongful conviction unit and a hate crimes bureau within the DA’s office. 

But Katz has been shaky on other reforms. In her 2019 campaign, Katz vowed not to prosecute low-level marijuana charges. In 2021, she did dismiss thousands of marijuana-related offenses, but this April her office began cracking down on unlicensed cannabis vendors. On sex-work cases, Katz said she would work to implement the controversial Nordic model which prosecutes clients and sex traffickers, not sex workers, but according to Documented, Queens still maintains the highest rates of prosecution for prostitution arrests in the city.

Katz has maintained a conventional approach to office that follows that of a politician responding to pressure rather than a prosecutor committed to fixing problems, according to Thompson. He points out her decision to start a conviction integrity unit, for example. “She didn’t say, ‘When we reversed 99 cases because of conviction integrity problems, we then looked at the prosecutors who tried those cases and had them engage in training or fire them,’” Thompson says. “It’s been very much a political response. It sounds like what a state assembly person would respond, not what a thoughtful district attorney who’s trying to change her office would respond.”

Most notably, Katz has waffled in her views on bail reform. At the start of her last campaign, in December 2018, she said she would no longer seek cash bail for misdemeanors and advocate for broader state legislation that would do the same. Six months later in a June candidate debate, Katz said, “under my administration, there will be no cash bail.” Then, one week after taking office in 2020, an assistant district attorney in Katz’s office set bail for a man charged with stealing a cellphone at $50,000, breaking her initial reform pledge. (When NY1’s Erroll Louis questioned Katz about reneging, she said she believed cash bail was unfair “deep in [her] heart” but that Queens was not ready to eliminate it.)

Bail reform has stood in for broader discussions about crime in New York in the past three years since it went into effect. Adams and Hochul have both pointed to the 2019 bail reform law—which sought to end cash bail for a wide array of misdemeanors and non-violent felonies to prevent jail time for low-income defendants—as a reason for spiking crime.

This spring, New York’s state legislature, with Hochul’s blessing, passed a budget that rolled back some of the most significant reforms of the 2019 bail law. The changes eliminated the provision that judges needed to use the “least restrictive” means to ensure defendants return to court. Now, judges are allowed to set any conditions they deem necessary—including setting cash bail, which, advocates have warned, will lead to more pretrial incarceration. 

Both Grasso and Katz have supported this rollback, and in fact have each argued for a further revision to bail reform, to include a “dangerousness standard” that would allow judges to consider defendants’ past conviction or other more nebulous factors in order to detain them pretrial. Hochul has argued against implementing dangerousness calling it “subjective” and “determined by the color of [defendants’] skin and perception of dangerousness,” but critics have said her new revision is equally as arbitrary and biased. (It ultimately was not included in the budget that passed.) 

On May 5, Katz joined Adams and Hochul at an event to sign the controversial bail reform changes into law. Katz called it a “welcome amendment” in a statement. But Grasso believes it doesn’t go far enough. He has said the fact of Katz’s attendance at the event proves she isn’t “serious” about setting a true dangerousness standard for defendants. 

Queens had the second largest number of arrests for misdemeanors, according to recent data from New York City’s Criminal Justice Agency, among the five boroughs. More than 17,000 people were arrested in Queens on low-level offenses, many of whom, if unable to post bail, could end up in Rikers for months at a time.

While the 2019 race moved the frame of what the new DA could do in office and how she could use her discretion wisely for safety and justice, Katz is hardly seen as a reformer, says Insha Rahman, the vice president for advocacy and partnerships for the Vera Institute of Justice. “Some of her policies are indeed reform oriented,” Rahman says. “[But] Katz has in general been less reform minded in her first term in office, than say, certainly Eric Gonzalez in Brooklyn, or Alvin Bragg in Manhattan.”

In other U.S. cities, Rahman says, there’s more appetite among voters for solutions to crime that don’t resort to failed models of justice. Just last month, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, home to Pittsburgh, voters elected public defender Matt Dugan over the incumbent Steve Zappala in the Democratic primary. But in DA races across New York state there are far fewer self-professed reformers on the ballot than four years ago. In the Bronx, defense attorney Tess Cohen is challenging incumbent Darcel Clark on a progressive platform, but in Queens, progressives have largely haven’t weighed in on the contest between Katz and Grasso. (Cabán did not respond to a request for an interview.)

One exception has been progressive city councilmember Shekar Krishnan, who publicly supported Tiffany Cabán in 2019. He wrote that he has not “always seen eye to eye” with Katz, but still commended her for her efforts in a June QNS editorial where he endorsed her run against “dubious opponents.” 

As with most off-year elections, turnout will determine the outcome. In the 2019 primaries, only 11.9 percent of Queens voters showed up to the polls. It is the immigrant borough, with 46 percent of residents who were born outside of the country. 

One difficulty in projecting the results could be the presence on the ballot of Devian Daniels, a former public defender, who entered the race in mid-April. While Daniels is running to reform the office with a focus on decriminalizing poverty and ending mass incarceration, she does not have an active campaign, with any contributions or endorsements on record—with the exception of submitting signatures for ballot placement. Her candidacy was not approved by the New York City Bar Association. Daniels has also been tied to Hiram Monserrate, the former New York legislator convicted of federal corruption charges for stealing city council funds and for assaulting his girlfriend. (Daniels did not respond in time for requests for comment.)

Still, Katz is expected to prevail. Neither Rahman nor Thompson believe Grasso will win the primary. Yet both worry about how progressives might hold Katz’ office accountable.

“I think the danger is that Katz will misinterpret a victory as a signal that she doesn’t need to do anything differently, ” Thompson tells Mother Jones and Bolts. “The great challenge around people who really wanna see true racial equity in the criminal legal system and true reform is: How do we continue to keep elected officials’ feet to the fire?”

The post Melinda Katz Once Faced Off Against DSA. Now It’s New York’s Police Lobby. appeared first on Bolts.

Ryan says he was there to monitor the police behavior toward protesters, standing removed from the gathering. “I said, ‘Okay, I’ll go watch,’ because police have a tendency to overreach to these little things,” he recounts. “I don’t think I should have been arrested. But I was.” The police initially accused him of resisting arrest but they later admitted that this characterization was incorrect and apologized; still, they maintained trespassing charges.

A few weeks later, Ryan announced his candidacy for Broome County district attorney. He says he’d bring into the office a more skeptical perspective toward the criminal legal system, born of his experience as a defense attorney and public defender. “We all know that they police certain communities and treat certain communities differently,” he told Bolts. “If you’re not in a position of power to change it, then it’s not going to change.” 

He added, “The only one who is a gatekeeper to make sure that horrible jobs aren’t done is the district attorney because he or she has the ultimate discretion on whether to prosecute and how to prosecute, and what justice to extract from each individual situation.”

Broome County’s DA race is among dozens this year that will decide who leads local prosecution and law enforcement in New York. Fifteen counties are electing their sheriffs and 24 their DA, and the filing deadline for candidates to run for a party’s nomination passed last month. 

Most counties drew just one candidate who’ll be facing no competition. They include conservative sheriffs who have resisted gun control, the high-profile DAs of Rochester and Staten Island, and a sheriff who defied calls to resign for sharing a racist social media post—and is now poised to stay in office for four more years. 

Still, a few flashpoints have emerged. Candidates are taking contrasting approaches on bail in Broome, discovery reform in the Bronx, and policing in Queens. Rensselaer County (Troy) faces another reckoning with its unusual decision to partner with federal immigration authorities.

Bolts has compiled a full list of candidates running in the June 27 primaries, which will decide the nominees of the four political parties that have ballot lines in New York State: the Democratic, Republican, Working Families, and Conservative parties. Candidates can still petition until late May to appear on the Nov. 7 ballot as an independent.

These elections are unfolding against the backdrop of reforms the state adopted in 2019 to detain fewer people pretrial and offer defendants more access to the evidence against them. Democrats earlier this month agreed to roll back those reforms after years of pressure by many DAs and sheriffs. Their new package, championed by Governor Kathy Hochul, gives judges’ more authority to impose bail, amid other provisions that will likely increase pretrial detention. Hochul also backed a push by New York City DAs to loosen discovery rules requiring that prosecutors quickly share evidence with the defense, but the final legislation did not touch those.

Tess Cohen, a defense attorney and former prosecutor who is running for DA in the Bronx, is one of a few candidates this year who is voicing support for the original pretrial reforms and distaste for the rollbacks. Cohen is running in the Democratic primary against Bronx DA Darcel Clark, who was reported by City & State to be the chief instigator in lobbying state politicians to  loosen discovery rules. (Clark and other city DAs flipped on their push in the final days.) Cohen faults state politicians for making policy based on the media blowing up specific instances of crime.

“The problem with people like the governor bowing down to press coverage that is sensationalist and fear-mongering, and almost always inaccurate, is that we actually make our communities less safe when we do that,” Cohen told Bolts. “We have very good data that shows that holding people at Rikers Island on bail or low level crimes does not make us safer.” 

A study released in March by the John Jay College found that people who were released due to the bail reform were less likely to be rearrested. 

Eli Northrup, a staunch proponent of the original reforms as policy director at the Bronx Defenders, hopes that the upcoming elections usher in more local officials who are “looking to change the system, shrink the system, work toward having fewer people incarcerated, rather than using it as a tool for coercing pleas.”  But he is also circumspect after the new rollbacks. Even if a reformer were to win an office, he says, they’d likely have to contend with police unions, mayors, and other entrenched powers looking to block reforms. “What we should be doing is spending less money on policing and prosecution and investing that very money into the communities that are harmed the most by violence,” he says.

To kick off Bolts’ coverage of New York’s criminal justice elections this year, here are five storylines that jump out since the filing deadline has passed.

1. Challenges from opposite directions for two New York City DAs 

Queens four years ago saw a tense Democratic primary for DA between Tiffany Cabán, a public defender who ran as a decarceral candidate, and Queens Borough President Melinda Katz, who prevailed by just 60 votes. Four years later, Katz faces a primary challenge from her right from George Grasso, a retired judge and former NYPD official, who is calling for harsher policing and thinks the city is waging a “war on cops.” Grasso is running with the support of Bill Bratton, the former NYPD commissioner and a frequent critic of policing reforms. 

Public defender Devian Daniels is running as well, saying she wants to fight mass incarceration from the Queens DA’s office after “years of witnessing abuses on the front lines as defense counsel.” The Democratic primary typically amounts to victory in this blue stronghold. 

In the Bronx, Darcel Clark’s sole primary challenger, Tess Cohen, says wants to take the DA’s office in a more progressive direction. She says that Clark’s lobbying to loosen the state’s discovery rules is emblematic of how prosecutors can coerce defendants into guilty pleas. “If you’re held in Rikers, and you can only get out if you plead guilty, and you can’t make that argument that you’re actually innocent because you don’t have the evidence, then you end up pleading guilty just to get out of Rikers,” she told Bolts. 

Cohen explained that she would also change how the office decides whether to recommend for pretrial detainment. “If we are in a space where our recommendation for sentence or our plea offer means the person is immediately going to be released from jail, they should be released anyways,” she said. “You should not be holding someone in jail that you plan to release the minute they plead guilty.” 

Clark did not reply to a request for comment.

2. North of New York City, the policy contrasts on pretrial reform are muted

Broome County, on the border with Pennsylvania, had the highest rate of people detained in jail as of 2020, the year the reforms were first implemented, according to data compiled by the Vera Institute for Justice. Ryan, the Democratic lawyer running for DA, told Bolts he supports the reforms, crediting them for helping slightly reduce the local jail population. 

But his two Republican opponents in this swing county disagree. Incumbent Michael Korchak has pushed for their repeal for years, while his primary rival Paul Battisti, a defense attorney, says the reforms were “extreme.” Neither Battisti nor Korchak replied to requests for comment. Their rhetoric is in line with the position of many, but not all, upstate DAs who have lobbied to roll back the pretrial reforms ever since they passed in 2019. 

But candidates have tended to converge on pretrial policy in the other DA races north of New York City. There are three such counties besides Broome with more than 100,000 residents. 

In Ulster County, Democrat Manny Nneji, who is currently the chief assistant prosecutor, faces Michael Kavanagh, who used to have the same job and now works as a defense attorney, and is running as a Republican. In interviews with Hudson Valley One earlier this year, both candidates largely agreed that the 2019 bail reform should be made more restrictive, and jostled about who is tougher on crime.

In Onondaga County, home to Syracuse, Incumbent William Fitzpatrick is running for re-election as a Republican against Chuck Keller, who filed to run for the Democratic nomination but also that of the Conservative Party, an established party in the state. (New York law allows candidates to run for multiple nominations at once.) The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that the local Conservative Party in March chose to endorse Keller over Kitzpatrick after Keller shared with them that he supports bail reform roll backs in line with what lawmakers ended up passing in early May. (Christine Varga is also running in the Conservative Party primary.)

In Dutchess County, Republican William Grady is retiring this year after 40 years as DA, a tenure during which he strongly fought statewide reform proposals. Democrat Anthony Parisi and Republican Matthew Weishaupt, who have both worked as prosecutors under Grady, are running to replace him; after he entered the race, Parisi faced a threat of retribution from Grady, for which the DA later apologized. Weishaupt has said he thinks the discovery reforms are “dangerous” in how they help defendants. Parisi did not reply to questions on his views on the reforms.

Six smaller counties—Columbia, Delaware, Hamilton, Lewis, Seneca, and Sullivan, with populations ranging from 5,000 to 80,000 residents—also host contested DA races this year. 

3. Half of this year’s DA elections are uncontested

A single candidate is running unopposed in 12 of New York’s DA races. Ten of them are already in office, but two are newcomers: Todd Carville ​​in Oneida County and Anthony DiMartino in Oswego County. Both are Republicans and currently work as assistant prosecutors.

Michael McMahon, Staten Island’s DA, is running unopposed for the second consecutive cycle: He is a Democrat in a red-leaning county, but the GOP did not put up a candidate against him. He has been very critical of the criminal justice reforms adopted by his party’s lawmakers, and has pushed for their rollback. Another prominent critic of the pretrial reforms, Monroe County (Rochester) DA Sandra Doorley, is also running unopposed. Doorley, a Republican who was the president of the state’s DA association back when the reforms were first implemented in 2020, faced a heated challenge four years ago but is now on a golden path toward a fourth term.

4. Will ICE’s 287(g) program retain a foothold in New York?

Rensselaer County, home to Troy, is the only county in New York State that participates in ICE’s 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to act like federal immigration agents in county jails—and one of the only blue-leaning counties in the nation with such an agreement. Immigrants’ rights activists from Cape Cod to suburban Atlanta have targeted 287(g) by getting involved in sheriff’s elections in recent years, tipping these offices toward candidates who pledged to terminate their offices’ partnerships with ICE.

Patrick Russo, the Republican sheriff who joined 287(g), is retiring this year. The race to replace him will decide whether ICE’s program retains its sole foothold in New York.

But will anyone even make the case for breaking ties with ICE? The two Republicans who are running for Russo’s office, Kyle Bourgault and Jason Stocklas, each told Bolts that they would maintain their county in the program with no hesitation. 

The only Democratic candidate, Brian Owens, did not return repeated requests for comment. He said at a press conference last month that he had no position on the matter. “I’d want to educate myself a little more before I’d make any decision on that,” he said. Owens is a former police chief of Troy, a city that during his tenure saw local activism pressuring officials to not collaborate with ICE, so these are not new questions. Still, Russo coasted to re-election unopposed four years ago, and it remains to be seen whether the 2023 cycle gives immigrants’ rights activists any more of an opening. 

5. Most incumbent sheriffs are virtually certain of securing new terms

Albany Sheriff Craig Apple drew national attention in 2021 for filing a criminal complaint against then-Governor Andrew Cuomo for groping, but he also attracted criticism for fumbling the case. The New York Times reported at the time that Apple seemed to be made of Teflon, having rebounded from past controversies with multiple re-election bids where he faced no opponent. History repeated itself again—he drew no challenger this year. 

But judging by the lay of the land throughout the state, this says less about Apple than it does about a broader dearth of engagement in New York’s local elections: Overall, 80 percent of the state’s sheriff races are uncontested this year. 

This includes the sheriffs of Fulton and Greene County, who have fiercely opposed a new gun law banning concealed weapons in a long list of public spaces, alongside many peers who are not up for election this year. Fulton’s Richard Giardino took to Fox News to signal he’d only loosely enforce it. 

And it includes Rockland County Sheriff Louie Falco, who faced calls for his resignation in 2020 after he shared a link from a white supremacist website about Black people on Facebook. Three years later, he won’t even face any opponent as he coasts to a fourth term.

The post Tensions High on Bail and Policing as New Yorkers Elect DAs and Sheriffs appeared first on Bolts.

Associate Judge Rowan Wilson, a progressive jurist who is already a member of the court, will replace DiFiore as Chief Judge. Caitlin Halligan, a well-known private lawyer who served as New York’s solicitor general in the 2000s, will take Willson’s seat as associate judge.

Liberals hope that these changes push the court to the left. Over the past several years, they’ve watched with frustration as a bloc of four judges, enough for a majority on this seven-person court, consistently sided with corporations, police, and prosecutors, leaving progressives like Wilson to write dissents in cases that tested matters’ like workers’ ability to seek damages or law enforcement’s power to conduct warrantless searches. 

Now Wilson, the state’s first Black chief judge, will enjoy new prerogatives to shape the state’s vast judicial branch to his liking—a chief judge has influence over the rules for other courts and authority to appoint people to key positions like the Commission on Judicial Nominations—and progressives have vocally celebrated his promotion ever since Hochul announced it last month. 

“Rowan Wilson, at least in his opinions, has signaled that he’s really attuned to the needs of the most vulnerable New Yorkers,” said Noah Rosenblum, a law professor at NYU Law. “There are reasons to anticipate that he will use his powers as chief judge to try to make the administrative machinery of New York courts more responsive to those values.”

But when it comes to the raw math on upcoming rulings, it’s Halligan who matters. Hers will be the new vote with the power to flip outcomes when she votes differently than DiFiore would have. And even if she does end the conservative bloc’s predictable control of the court, how consistently she sides with its liberal members is a separate question; besides Halligan, the court presently has three more right-leaning members, two judges who typically lean left (including Wilson), and one who is often a swing vote. 

How exactly Halligan reshapes this intricate balance remains to be seen, in part due to a legal question that surrounds her nomination, and also due to her career being something of an ideological Rorschach test for court observers.

When I told Rosenblum I was setting out to ascertain how her nomination may affect the court’s future cases, he quipped, “I don’t envy you.”

Just three months ago, the landscape in the state Senate looked dramatically different. Progressive groups in December rallied against Hector LaSalle, Hochul’s first choice to replace DiFiore. Within days of Hochul’s announcement, reproductive rights organizations, unions, and criminal justice reform advocates denounced LaSalle’s past rulings on abortion, defendants’ rights, and labor. Half-a-dozen Democratic senators said they opposed him within a day; and in January, most of the Democratic caucus voted against him when the state Senate rejected him.

No such tumult greeted Halligan. Her confirmation process was comparatively very quiet, and her confirmation this week was backed by nearly all Democratic senators. (Many Republicans opposed it.) 

It’s not that progressives rallied behind her enthusiastically. When I asked LaSalle’s critics about Halligan, they often began by offering lengthy praise for Wilson, whom Hochul announced on the same day as something like a two-judge deal. In a statement this week, Senator Jessica Ramos, who had quickly opposed LaSalle from the left in December, said she was “choosing to be hopeful” that Halligan would align with Wilson’s wing of the court. So what drove the left’s widespread attitude of guarded support?

Whereas DiFiore was a former Republican politician (though she was selected for the bench by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo), Halligan has long been associated with Democratic or liberal legal circles. A former clerk of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Halligan was nominated by then-President Barack Obama in 2011 to one of the nation’s most prestigious federal courts, the D.C. Circuit. But she faced a yearslong blockade by U.S. Senate Republicans, who filibustered her on nearly-perfect party line votes. 

In the absence of many other signposts, this background has served as a sort of proxy this month for Halligan’s judicial politics. It has fueled an expectation, which I heard from a number of state sources this month, that she’ll pave the way for the court to issue more liberal rulings.

“The Obama administration thought she was liberal enough,” said Vincent Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the New York Court of Appeals, adding that Obama’s nominees to the nation’s highest courts did tend to lean left. “So you would think that the vetting has already been done.” 

Still, some of the same groups that successfully fought LaSalle expressed caution toward Halligan. As a longtime private lawyer, Halligan has taken on many cases on behalf of corporate clients, and progressive organizations raised concerns about a number of them in recent weeks. 

While working at a law firm last decade, Halligan represented Chevron when the oil company targeted human rights lawyer Steven Donziger with a racketeering lawsuit, after Donziger helped secure billions in damages due to Chevron’s polluting activities in the Amazon rainforest. 

In 2014, Halligan represented UPS in a high-profile case, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which she argued that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require corporations to make accommodations for pregnancy. (The court mostly ruled in favor of Penny Young, the plaintiff.) Halligan’s work on behalf of UPS drew criticism well before her nomination to New York’s high court. The legal publication The Flaw focused on Halligan’s work in Young vs. UPS in January as part of a broad jeremiad against Big Law, to make the case that attorneys who work on behalf of corporate clients should be accountable for “fueling inequality.”

After DiFiore’s resignation, prominent senators and progressive groups had urged Hochul to choose a public interest attorney or public defender to add professional diversity to the court, which mostly includes former corporate lawyers and prosecutors. (Halligan also worked as general counsel for the Manhattan DA’s office.)

One of these organizations, the Center for Community Alternatives, urged New York lawmakers to question Halligan about the “troubling” cases on which she has worked as a private attorney, while also acknowledging that her “contradictory record” contains cases where she defended more liberal positions. The New York Immigration Coalition on Wednesday called Halligan’s nomination “concerning” due to her “controversial record as a corporate attorney.”

The only Democrat who voted against Halligan on Wednesday was Jabari Brisport, a member of Democratic Socialists of America. Brisport did not reply to a request for comment.

Halligan has replied to these criticisms by distancing herself from the content of the claims she has made on behalf of her clients. These should not be taken as an indication of her own values, she has said, or of the outcomes she would prefer to see.

“In whatever capacity I represented a client, I’ve done my best to bring to the court whatever arguments there are on that client’s behalf,” Halligan said at her confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

She did not respond to a request for an interview for this story.

Halligan made the same point a decade ago, when she faced recriminations from the other direction by U.S. Senate Republicans for defending liberal policies while solicitor general in New York. The GOP zeroed in on legal work she had conducted on behalf of New York’s effort to hold gun manufacturers accountable for gun violence, calling her an “activist.”

Halligan’s allies responded at the time by describing her as a moderate. They played up other work she did in that role that was more likely to appeal to GOP senators, such as a memo she issued in March 2004 advising local officials to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, effectively shutting down a mayor in Ulster County who days earlier had done just that, at a time where a few local officials were sticking their neck out for same-sex marriage. They also insisted that, in cases like her work against gun manufacturers, she was merely doing her job: representing the interests of her client, which in that case was New York State. 

Since much of Halligan’s legal career has involved such work, though, putting all that to the side would leave few tea leaves in which to decipher her judicial philosophy. 

It also raises the question of what would even count as a tea leaf at all. At a time when judges and courts’ ability to set huge swaths of policy is so transparent, what are lawmakers and the public supposed to evaluate as indications of how Halligan will approach her new role?

“We don’t have a ton of information that we can evaluate that reflect her own particular political or jurisprudential belief, and that presents a genuine puzzle,” Rosenblum said, while adding that the information we do have—including her selection by what he called federal Democrats’ “judicial nominating machine”—is consistent with a cautiously liberal jurisprudence.

“It’s very difficult to predict what kind of Judge Halligan will be,” Peter Martin, director of judicial accountability at the Center for Community Alternatives, told me on Wednesday. “She has spent her entire career as an advocate, and she has written close to nothing that wasn’t on behalf of a client, meaning her personal values and understanding of the law are obscured.” 

Sam Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, was the lawyer who represented Penny Young in her case against UPS nine years ago. Despite their work on opposite sides of that case, he cheered Halligan’s nomination earlier this month.

“I’ve known Caitlin for more than 25 years and, based on many experiences with her over that time, am convinced she’ll be a progressive judge,” he told me. (Bagenstos, who currently works as the general counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, insisted that he was talking in his personal capacity.) “Obviously, nobody can doubt her legal brilliance.”

Asked for what specifically he would point to as a public indication of this disposition, Bagenstos pointed to Halligan’s pro bono work on behalf of New York tenants, defending the constitutionality of rent stabilization against landlord groups. (One of New York’s most left-wing senators pointed to the same case this week to explain why she backed Halligan’s nomination.) 

On its face, this case is similar to the others: Halligan was working on behalf of her clients.

But Halligan said this week that her pro bono cases can offer unique insight into her values. They are all, after all, work she is choosing to do for free. Such cases, Halligan told a legal publication in 2019, “allow the [law] firm to engage in a meaningful way with matters of true public interest.” Other pro bono work from Halligan’s includes writing briefs in defense of the Affordable Care Act or representing employees with labor recriminations against Amazon. 

“Halligan argued in her confirmation hearing that her pro bono work best illustrates the legal outcomes she personally supports,” Martin said. “We’ll find out soon enough if she was telling the truth when she said that.” 

The biggest controversy that has greeted Halligan’s nomination does not concern her record. It’s about whether it was legal of Hochul to appoint her when she did.

In New York, governors choose judges out of it on a short list presented to them by a state nominating commission. Wilson and Halligan both featured on the list prepared by the commission to fill the vacancy created by DiFiore’s resignation; but technically, Hochul selected Halligan to fill a still-hypothetical vacancy, the one that would be left by Wilson once the Senate confirmed him as chief justice. Republicans and some legal scholars argued this is unconstitutional and that Wilson’s confirmation should trigger a new vacancy and a new shortlist before Hochul can fill it. State Democrats replied by passing a law that specified that Hochul was authorized to do this; they did so after Hochul announced her nominations. 

Heading into Halligan’s confirmation hearings this week, Republicans threatened to sue to block Halligan from joining the court. But The Times Union reported on Wednesday that the GOP did not file a lawsuit before Wednesday’s vote, and that it was unknown whether they could and would still do it in the future.

Hochul’s dual move sped up the process by months, and its apparent success brings the Court of Appeals back to full capacity for the first time since July. 

Bonventre, for one, expects the combination of Wilson’s promotion and Halligan’s arrival to make a significant political difference. 

“The court in recent years has been much more conservative than in the past,” he said. “I don’t think it will become a left-wing court, but will this court be more sympathetic to the rights of the accused? I think unquestionably. Workers’ rights? Unquestionably. Consumer rights? Unquestionably. The rights of people who’ve been harmed by others? Unquestionably.”

But the highest-profile case that awaits Halligan does not fit into these categories. It’s Hochul and other New York Democrats’ recent plea in state court to have another shot at drawing the state’s political maps. Last year, the Court of Appeals struck down Democrats’ gerrymanders in a 4-3 ruling, with DiFiore in the majority and Wilson in dissent, and ordered a trial court to draw remedial maps; this greatly helped Republicans in the midterms. If Halligan approached the issue differently than DiFiore and authorized a second bite at the redistricting apple, it may swing several U.S. House seats in 2024—and it could also affect control of Congress.

With that case still on the horizon, Democratic state senators this week celebrated Halligan for joining the court. “I’m sure the court can become the best appellate court in the nation with her on the bench,” Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who chairs the Judiciary committee, said on the floor. 

It’s become a core tenet of present-day progressive legal advocacy that state appellate courts could provide an antidote to the breathtaking conservative takeover of the federal bench. That view took off during the Trump presidency but has intensified since the Dobbs ruling in June.

Halligan signaled this week that she agreed with that notion, in what may have been her strongest hint of how she’d approach her new position.

“State courts are where the issues that are most important to the day-to-day lives of New Yorkers get decided,” Halligan told the Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing. “And it is where the scope of the New York constitution gets hammered out, a task that is especially important at a moment when federal courts appear to be pulling back on some key constitutional protections.”

The post New York’s Highest Court Takes a Step to the Left, Maybe appeared first on Bolts.

She chose to push it to the right on Thursday by nominating Hector LaSalle, an appellate judge and former prosecutor who has amassed a conservative record, particularly on defendant rights and police oversight, to the New York Court of Appeals.

Hochul’s choice builds on the legacy of Andrew Cuomo, the former Democratic governor who at one point had appointed all seven court members, locking in a right-leaning majority that is now likely to live on. 

“Judge LaSalle has a sterling reputation as a consensus-builder, and I know he can unite the court in service of justice,” Hochul said in a statement. Hochul added that LaSalle, whose nomination is subject to a Senate confirmation, will also be the state’s first Latino chief judge. 

In the lead-up to Hochul’s decision, a coalition of progressive New York organizations released an assessment calling the prospect of LaSalle’s nomination “unacceptable” and zeroing in on his rulings on cases that dealt with abortion, criminal justice, and labor. Last week, a group of 46 law professors released a joint letter raising concerns about LaSalle due to what they described as his “activist conservative jurisprudence” and his “cavalier attitude towards reproductive rights, hostility to organized labor, and a worrying insensitivity to due process.”

“He’s put his judicial philosophy out there, on paper, and it strikes me he is to the right of the majority of New Yorkers,” Steve Zeidman, a professor at CUNY law school who signed onto that letter, told Bolts on Thursday.

“This is someone who is less concerned with individual civil liberties, and more concerned with siding with the government and corporations,” Zeidman added. 

Jocelyn Simonson, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, told Bolts on Thursday that she also signed the letter because she finds LaSalle’s record on issues including reproductive rights and criminal procedure to be “abysmal.” 

If he is confirmed by the state’s Democratic-run Senate, LaSalle would fill a vacancy left by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, who abruptly resigned this summer. On the court, DiFiore was part of a bloc of four judges—all appointed by Cuomo—who have consistently banded together around rulings that strengthened the hands of law enforcement, management over labor, landlords, and prosecutors in a slew of cases, the publication New York Focus reported in June. 

DiFiore’s departure broke that bloc’s control over the court, but LaSalle’s record suggests he would reconstitute a conservative-leaning majority.

The main case highlighted by the law professors’ letter last week was a ruling, joined by LaSalle in 2017, that partially protected crisis pregnancy centers, which are run by anti-abortion groups, from an investigation into possible fraud by the New York attorney general’s office.

Another LaSalle ruling that has gained scrutiny came in a 2015 case that authorized the corporation Cablevision to sue union officials for defamation despite state laws that are meant to protect labor leaders. Communication Workers of America released a statement on Wednesday, before LaSalle’s nomination, denouncing his “anti-union stance that directly contradicts the rights of New York’s workers to organize.”

LaSalle has also drawn criticism from criminal justice reform advocates for regularly voting against defendants who brought lawsuits challenging their arrest or conviction. 

Simonson, who teaches criminal law, pointed to a 3-2 ruling in a 2014 case known as People v. Corbin, in which LaSalle sided with the majority in holding that a defendant had waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of a warrantless search when he pled guilty. “Judge LaSalle has demonstrated a troubling lack of concern for the rights of people charged with crimes, especially when it comes to the ability of courts to review unconstitutional police conduct,” she said.

LaSalle would be the fourth former prosecutor on the seven-member court. He is, in fact, the third consecutive appointment to the court who is a former prosecutor, after Cuomo-appointee Madeline Singas and Hochul-appointee Shirley Troutman.

The court currently has no member who has worked as a defense attorney.

“When you look at the federal level, it’s such a contrast with what’s happening in New York,” said Zeidman, the law professor who is himself a former public defender, pointing to President Biden’s nomination of civil rights attorneys and public defenders to the federal bench. That push has largely not been mirrored in state courts, even in blue states like New York.

“The need for that professional diversity, it’s evident in how the [New York] Court of Appeals has operated for the last several years,” Zeidman said. “When you look at criminal cases, much has been written about the fact that the court of appeals is hearing fewer and fewer criminal cases, and when they are, the majority seems to have a knee-jerk reaction of siding with the prosecutors no matter how egregious the issues raised by the defense.”

Eliza Orlins, a public defender and activist in New York City, said she is concerned about the broad powers the chief justice exercises over the court system.

“We’ve made marginal progress in New York in terms of criminal justice issues, when prior we were one of the worst states in the country on discovery, on prosecuting children as adults, on so many things,” she told Bolts on Thursday. “That can all be put in jeopardy.”

Hochul’s choice was constrained to a list of seven names selected by the state’s Commission on Judicial Nomination, a body made up in large part of appointees of Cuomo and DiFiore that created controversy for excluding some prominent liberal jurists and candidates of color. 

Still, the list presented a clear ideological choice for Hochul. Three of the jurists on the list, including LaSalle, had a record closer to that of the court’s current conservative bloc. Three others were endorsed by the progressive coalition, The Court NY Deserves, as the likeliest to counterbalance the right-leaning bloc.

LaSalle was one of three judges on that list to receive the highest qualification ratings from both the New York State Bar Association and New York State Trial Lawyers Association; the other two who did were among the jurists who were championed by progressives. LaSalle has also received strong support from Hispanic and Latino lawyers’ bar associations in New York.

After Hochul’s decision, several progressive groups in that coalition, such as the Working Families Party, quickly called on the state Senate to reject LaSalle. 

“The folks we were hoping ultimately would be considered and appointed were people whose backgrounds and histories showed they were committed to uplifting the lives of marginalized folks,” said Tolu Lawal, the co-lead organizer of Unlock The Bar. “Hochul is on notice and the Senate is also on notice that people are paying attention, and we will be watching the votes and making decisions afterward.” 

Several left-leaning New York senators announced they would oppose LaSalle on Thursday. 

“It’s indefensible to ask for Black votes and then work to incarcerate us,” Jabari Brisport, who represents Brooklyn tweeted on Thursday. “No on LaSalle.” 

Samra Brouk, who represents the Rochester area, denounced LaSalle’s judicial record as “anti-woman, anti-worker, and anti-family.” Others who voiced opposition include Michelle Hinchey, Kristen Gonzalez, Robert Jackson, and Julia Salazar. 

Other Democratic senators with a progressive reputation had more vague reactions to LaSalle’s nomination on Thursday. Brad Hoylman, the chair of the chamber’s Judiciary Committee, told New York Focus that he is undecided on LaSalle. Zellnor Myrie, who released a statement last month calling on the governor “to prioritize civil rights and defense experience when selecting our next top jurist,” also tweeted that he was undecided on Thursday.  

Nominations to state court typically don’t draw much attention or controversy. “Traditionally, the senate has been a rubber-stamp,” Zeidman said.

In 2021 progressives tried to organize against Cuomo’s choice to send Singas, who at the time was the district attorney of Nassau County, to the high court. But despite some recorded opposition in the senate, Singas was easily confirmed.

She went on to solidify what became the court’s conservative bloc. At least one powerful New York senator, Michael Gianaris, told Bolts and New York Focus in July that he regretted his support for Singas. On Thursday, his office pointed Bolts toward a statement he issued in September that called for “diverse legal experience.” Another New York senator who supported Singas’s nomination, Andrew Gounardes, said in July that he did not regret his vote because “no one could foresee just how important state government would be;” on Thursday, he released a statement on Thursday saying that he was “deeply concerned” by LaSalle’s record and that New York courts should be a “bulwark” against the conservative federal judiciary. 

Critics of LaSalle are intent on at least making the case this year that state institutions deserve a bright spotlight. 

“In light of the current composition of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, our state courts are more important than ever as interpreters of our laws and our rights,” Simonson said. Zeidman concurs. “I’m optimistic that there’s going to be an awful lot of attention to the confirmation process this go-around.”

Alex Burness contributed reporting.

The article was updated on Friday morning to reflect additional statements from New York senators.

The post Kathy Hochul Pushes New York’s Highest Court to the Right appeared first on Bolts.

Many states hold their local elections on odd-numbered years—a schedule that depresses turnout and that some places are fighting to change. That means that, if you’re interested in the shape of your criminal legal system, critical storylines are already taking shape: These local and state offices enjoy the brunt of the discretion to shape incarceration and policing. DAs and sheriffs, in particular, decide which cases to prosecute and with what severity, exercise nearly unfettered control over jail conditions, and choose how they partner with federal immigration enforcement.

There are nearly 500 elections for prosecutors and sheriffs scheduled for 2023, a Bolts analysis finds—and the first filing deadlines are coming up in just weeks. 

These elections are largely concentrated in Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, with just a few sprinkled in Florida, New Jersey, and Washington State. (The full list is available here.)

Other local offices that shape criminal punishment and policing are also on the ballot next year, including three governorships, at least two supreme court justices in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and hundreds of state lawmakers, local judges, and mayors.

Local elections are often very late to take shape, so in most cases the field remains undefined. At this time, the likeliest elections to draw the stark contrasts we have seen in recent cycles—with candidates disagreeing on whether to intentionally aim to reduce incarceration, or what goes into advancing public safety—include prosecutor races in New York City and upstate New York, Pittsburgh and the Philly suburbs, and Northern Virginia, as well as mayoral races in Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, and across Texas. Sheriff races across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia may draw some scrutiny to immigration and detention conditions.

Bolts will follow these races throughout the year. Today, I am kicking off our coverage by laying out six big questions that will define the cycle: 

1. Can reform-minded prosecutor candidates hold their ground in Virginia, and make inroads elsewhere?

The last time the counties that are electing their prosecutors in 2023 voted for these same officials, in 2019, the results made for a striking split screen. Virginia saw one of the widest set of wins to date for candidates who campaigned on reducing incarceration. After winning  in a string of populous suburban counties,  they formed a statewide coalition called Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice—at the time an unprecedented step—that advocating for lawmakers to abolish the death penalty and mandatory minimums, among other reforms. But their positions drew heavy heat from the right, including judicial pushback and failed recalls as well as criticism from the left over false promises. 

Now, those first-term incumbents are up for election again. They include Arlington’s Parisa Dehghani-Tafti and Fairfax’s Steve Descano, both in Northern Virginia, who drew attention in 2019 for ousting a pair of incumbents in Democratic primaries, as well as Albemarle’s James Hingeley, Loudoun’s Buta Biberaj, and Prince William’s Amy Ashworth. Several of these incumbents are now facing challengers, intra-party strife, or conservative anger, and the results of the 2023 cycle will determine the political strength of the state’s reform prosecutor coalition  going forward.

In New York and Pennsylvania, though, the 2019 DA elections saw advocates of criminal justice reform largely stagnate due to the sky-high number of uncontested elections and some high-profile losses. 

Pennsylvania’s marquee election in 2023 is likely to be the DA race in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), where longtime Democratic DA Stephen Zappala is a vocal critic of criminal justice reforms amid significant racial disparities in his office. In 2019, Zappala beat multiple progressive challengers, though progressive organizers have made major progress in Pittsburgh in the intervening years, including winning a ballot measure meant to curtail solitary confinement and electing decarceral judges in 2021. 

Other DA races in Pennsylvania include counties like Cumberland and Lancaster that took a distinctly punitive approach to the opioid crisis, and populous Philly suburbs like Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. Philadelphia’s reform DA Larry Krasner is not up after cruising to re-election in 2021; he has remained relatively isolated so far among DAs in the state, a far cry from the dynamic in Virginia, and 2023 will be the next test of whether his allies can change that.

In New York, where most prosecutors have been relentlessly critical of a landmark package of pretrial reforms, at least two former presidents of the state’s DA association are up for re-election this year—in Monroe County (Rochester) and Onondaga County (Syracuse). Another DA who has battled against state Democrats’ bail reform, William Grady of Dutchess County (Poughkeepsie), has said he is retiring after 40 years as DA.

Bronx DA Darcel Clark has drawn a reform challenger who says she is running to “end mass incarceration” four years after securing re-election unopposed. Also on the 2023 calendar: Queens, the site of the extraordinarily tight 2019 race that saw Melinda Katz become DA after defeating socialist organizer Tiffany Cabán.

In Mississippi, I have my eyes on the Fifth District, which covers seven counties in the central part of the state: DA Doug Evans drew national opprobrium and condemnation from the U.S. Supreme court for his decadeslong effort to prosecute Curtis Flowers six times for the same crime—a crusade exposed in the podcast “In the Dark.” Even with that exceptional spotlight, Evans ran unopposed in 2019 and remains in office, with little accountability, today. 

2. Will sheriffs and jailers face accountability?

The 2022 midterms showcased once again that, with some exceptions, sheriffs tend to secure re-election even when they link up in far-right networks, signal their eagerness to disrupt the federal government, or prepare to disrupt local elections. Next year will bring a different cast of characters to the forefront. There’s Sheriff Adam Fortney of Snohomish County, Washington, in the Seattle suburbs, who faced a recall effort in 2020 for quickly disregarding statewide COVID rules even while ramping up other arrests.

There’s Sheriff Sid Gautreaux, in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana’s most populous parish, who runs a jail with infamously dangerous conditions. Or there’s Sheriff Mike Chapman in Loudoun County, Virginia, who has drawn scrutiny for accepting campaign donations from private contractors that work with his office, a common practice among jailors. The vast majority of sheriffs in Louisiana and Virginia will be elected in 2023, creating a window for local jails to draw more public attention.

Note that Pennsylvania sheriffs have far more limited powers than elsewhere as they typically do not run local jails, which are managed directly or indirectly by other local offices, many of which are on the ballot in 2023. A string of deaths at the Allegheny County jail, located in Pittsburgh, and complaints that the lockup is violating a voter-approved ban on solitary confinement are now issues set to define the race for the county’s next chief executive.

3. Will immigrants’ rights advocates continue to curtail local collaboration with ICE?

When Donald Trump was president, voters in Democratic-leaning counties ousted public officials who cooperated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But ICE forged new relationships with Southern jails to make up for it, and sheriffs rushed to profit off renting vacant jail space for ICE to detain migrants and asylum-seekers. In 2023, nearly all sheriffs will be on the ballot in Louisiana and Mississippi, states that  proved to be difficult terrain for critics of those ICE arrangements four years ago.

Still, immigrants’ rights advocates have opportunities in some blue-leaning areas to build on their 2022 successes and elect new officials who oppose collaborating with ICE.

Just four counties with 2023 sheriff races participate in ICE’s 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to act like federal immigration agents in jails. Three of them voted for Joe Biden over Trump: Duval County (Jacksonville), Florida; East Baton Rouge Parish (Baton Rouge), Louisiana; and Rensselaer County (Troy), New York. (The fourth, which voted for Trump, is Culpeper County, Virginia.)

Still, recent history suggests that efforts to curtail cooperation with ICE will be tricky in all three blue-leaning counties. Republicans defended the sheriff’s office in Duval in a special election just last month. In East Baton Rouge, the GOP sheriff easily prevailed in 2019 with endorsements from prominent Democratic officials. And in Rensselaer, the only county in all of New York State that’s part of the 287(g) program, the Republican incumbent ran entirely unopposed four years ago.

4. Will there be more interest in city halls to reform policing?

Since the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, the most ambitious electoral platforms for changing or reducing policing have emerged at the municipal level—but so has the most stringent backlash. In the absence of federal elections, 2023 may be the year those dynamics again take front stage with many of the nation’s biggest cities set to hold mayoral races, including five cities of more than one million: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, and San Antonio. Many others will vote for their city councils.

These elections will feature incumbents who have tended to clash with protesters, such as Chicago’s incumbent mayor Lori Lightfoot; Democrats with a tough-on-crime reputation, such as John Whitmire, a Texas state senator running for Houston mayor; and candidates who have championed shifting resources from policing to other social services, such as Leslie Herod, who is running for mayor in Denver, or Cabán and other left-leaning council members who are up for re-election in New York. Watch out for whatever contrasts emerge around police budgets and ordinances that criminalize homelessness.

5. Will reform initiatives survive state elections in the South? 

In 2023, the elections that may change who runs state governments will largely be concentrated in the South, and the GOP has room to extend their power in what’s already their strongest region. 

In Virginia, the GOP governor and attorney general’s tough-on-crime posturing have run into the Democratic-run state Senate, which has rejected the former’s appointments to the parole board and killed the latter’s proposal to crack down against the state’s reform prosecutors. Should they flip the Senate in 2023, the GOP would gain full control of the state government and could press forward on those matters. 

In Kentucky, Democratic Governor Andy Beshear will seek a second term in difficult conditions given the state’s conservative bent. On his third day in office, he issued an executive order enabling hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians with felony convictions to vote; his re-election bid may decide the fate of his initiative since the GOP has reversed a similar one in the past.

The GOP also hopes to gain full control of Louisiana’s government; Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards cannot run for a third term, in a state where a short-lived bipartisan agreement to lower incarceration shattered within years of him signing a landmark reform package in 2017. 

6. How will judicial elections shape criminal punishment in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?

In 2021, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia progressives made the unusual choice of organizing around local judicial races, and it paid off with a wave of wins by candidates who ran on curtailing bail and reducing incarceration. Next year, there will be more elections for the local bench in both places. 

Also in 2023, all Pennsylvanians will get to vote in a supreme court election to replace Max Baer, a Democratic justice who died this fall. The court, which is sure to retain a Democratic majority, has vacillated on criminal justice matters. One of Baer’s final opinions came in a September ruling that brought relief to defendants with mental illness, though the court has also disappointed reformers by rejecting cases challenging the death penalty or felony murder statutes. 

While Pennsylvania’s election won’t be resolved until November, one of the year’s most important races looms in April: A state supreme court seat on the ballot in Wisconsin may hand the majority to the liberal wing. Such a flip would affect criminal justice cases that have long divided Wisconsin justices, but the fate of the state’s 1849 abortion ban also looms large. Wisconsin’s staunchly GOP legislature is locked into place by aggressive gerrymanders; unlike neighboring Michigan, there is no mechanism for citizens to put a popular initiative on the ballot. That leaves state litigation, and April’s judicial election, as a rare path for Wisconsinites to curtail the policing of reproductive rights. 

The post What Off Year? Hundreds of Local Elections Will Define Criminal Justice Policy in 2023 appeared first on Bolts.