Resources Issue: Politics

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – The Gun Control Debate

We all want to see fewer mass killings and less gun violence.

Here’s the issue of gun control in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

We all want to see fewer mass killings and less gun violence.

Bad Solution:
New federal gun control legislation would:

• Not change criminal behavior. It only creates a false sense of security.
• Make law-abiding citizens less safe, especially victims of domestic violence.
• Turn law-abiding citizens into instant felons for ordinary, safe behavior.
• Be cost prohibitive for the poorest families to protect themselves.

In short, gun control legislation does not focus on the root causes of human behavior, including violence, crime and untreated mental illness. At the heart of gun control initiatives is the hope that criminals will obey the law, but in fact they rarely do.

Instead, ordinary law-abiding gun owners would bear the burden of the proposed laws. For example: A woman who has recently left a violent relationship would be placed in a far more vulnerable position, reducing her ability to protect herself or her children.

A Better Path Forward: Allow Choice in Self-Defense

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for anyone’s choice of how to keep him/herself and loved ones safe. Some people choose to own firearms:

• Concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding segment of society.
• The CDC reports 500,000 annual uses of firearms in defense of self or others.
• States and cities with the least restrictive laws on gun ownership are safer than those with the most restrictive laws on gun ownership.

Adding new restrictions on firearms will not change criminal behavior, but could make law-abiding people less safe:

• The law-abiding are already making good decisions about buying firearms. Keeping their choice in place keeps them as safe as they can be.
• Vulnerable people, including women in unsafe homes or neighborhoods, should not have to beg for permission to defend themselves.
• Law enforcement should not waste valuable time on those who otherwise comply with the law. Their focus should be on those who are actually committing crimes.

Addressing Concerns: 

PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – Policing Reform

Communities throughout the country have enacted police reforms following the death of George Floyd.

The vast majority of Americans agree that cases of police brutality must be addressed. There is strong bipartisan support for policing reform that encourages fair and respectful treatment, and holds police officers accountable.

Here’s the issue of policing reform in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake

Communities throughout the country have enacted police reforms following the death of
George Floyd.

The vast majority of Americans agree that cases of police brutality must be addressed. There is
strong bipartisan support for policing reform that encourages fair and respectful treatment,
and holds police officers accountable.

However, defunding the police is not the answer:

• The push to reduce police funding is unpopular. Only 15% of Americans support
  defunding the police.
• Reduced funding would mean fewer police officers on the street and responding to calls.
• Community engagement programs—which have actually proven to be effective at
  improving community-police relations—are often the first things cut when funding is
  reduced.
• Already, 93% of police officers today are concerned for their safety and three out of
  four report a reluctance to use force, even when they think it’s appropriate.

Better Ways To Address Police Reform

Review Management Systems and Add Accountability Measures
Lawmakers should support common-sense police reform, such as:

• changes to management, training, and hiring practices
• accountability measures, such as body cameras and transparency in disciplinary
  records, and
• community-based alternatives.

While officers who commit wrongdoing should face consequences, the vast majority of police
officers are good people who play an important role in keeping our communities safe.

All Americans Should Feel Safe In Their Neighborhoods

• We should work to ensure the right to feel safe in our communities.
• Rioting, looting, or the destruction of property cannot be tolerated.
• We must ensure that officers have the resources they need to respond to domestic
  violence calls and other crimes.
• Studies show that a strong police presence in communities deters crime.

Addressing Misperceptions: 

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – Judicial Qualifications

Progressives want judges to decide cases based on modern notions of fairness and social justice, rather than on the law as written. But it is not the job of a federal judge to establish public policy priorities or to create new rights and remedies. Those jobs belong to the political branches of government, which are accountable to the people.

Here’s the issue of judicial qualifications in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake:

Progressives want judges to decide cases based on modern notions of fairness and social
justice, rather than on the law as written. But it is not the job of a federal judge to establish
public policy priorities or to create new rights and remedies. Those jobs belong to the political
branches of government, which are accountable to the people.

Because progressives view the courts as “super-legislatures”, rather than neutral arbiters of
law, they oppose nominees to the federal bench who do not have an explicit record of support for their favorite causes and who are not willing to legislate particular policy outcomes from the bench. A system in which a judge can decide any case however he or she sees fit—where the outcome of the case depends not on the law but on the judge assigned to the case—puts everyone’s freedom at risk.

Judicial Qualifications
The most important qualifications for nominees to the federal bench are:

1. Legal experience and credentials.

Nominees to the federal bench should have distinguished themselves professionally as lawyersor legal academics. Because every litigant has the right to representation, nominees should notbe judged by their clients or on the basis of legal arguments they made on behalf of clients.

2. A commitment to the principle of judicial restraint

Judges must interpret the law as written in the U.S. Constitution or in statutes passed by
Congress and must restrain themselves from bending the law to achieve certain objectives. So
long as a nominee is committed to this principle of restraint, his or her personal policy views
are irrelevant.

3. Judicial philosophy

A demonstrated commitment to originalism and textualism provides important evidence that a
nominee will practice judicial restraint, rather than impose his or her morals or worldview from
the bench.

Addressing Misperceptions: 

*PDF Download: In 60 Seconds – H.R. 1 and Election Integrity

Voting is a fundamental privilege of every American over the age of 18. Today, elections enable all citizens to make their voices heard at every level of government.

Unfortunately, the so-called “For the People Act,” or H.R. 1, threatens this privilege and undermines election security. Rather than empowering citizens, H.R.1 disenfranchises them.

Here’s the issue of election integrity in 60 seconds:

What’s at Stake

Voting is a fundamental privilege of every American over the age of 18. Today, elections
enable all citizens to make their voices heard at every level of government.

Unfortunately, the so-called “For the People Act,” or H.R. 1, threatens this privilege and
undermines election security. Rather than empowering citizens, H.R. 1 dilutes the power
of your vote.

H.R. 1 radically alters the way in which American elections are conducted. H.R. 1
undermines basic security measures, inviting fraud that may cancel out your vote.
Among other things, H.R. 1 nullifies state laws that require voter identification,
mandates automatic and same-day voter registration, and overrides state laws that
restrict the ability of individuals or groups to collect and submit large numbers of
ballots (i.e., ballot “harvesting”). It also prohibits states from enacting measures aimed
at removing from their registration rolls the names of people who are deceased or who
have moved out of the jurisdiction.

The Way Forward

To ensure that every citizen has an equal voice in politics, election procedures must
make voting both accessible and secure. The failure to ensure election integrity has
the potential to cancel out ballots, including those cast by black citizens who have
consistently turned out at high rates in recent elections compared to other racial and
ethnic groups.

We need to strengthen laws that protect voters, not get rid of them. We should make
voting as secure as other civic practices, such as accessing government buildings,
transportation systems, and education facilities. If we need identification (ID) to drive a
car, check out a library book, open a checking account, or purchase alcohol, it is even
more important that the person voting as you has to prove they are you before they vote.

Prohibiting voter ID requirements makes no sense and threatens our democracy.

Addressing Misperceptions