Much of the focus at the Democratic National Convention this week will be on how Vice President Kamala Harris, who will accept her party’s presidential nomination, and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, address policy issues. The momentum Harris has generated since she reached the top of the ticket has been sensational but largely based on rhetoric that has provided a jolt of hopefulness to voters seeking an alternative to Republican nominee Donald Trump. While Harris seems to understand the priorities of voters and has released her economic plan, one major policy area that she cannot afford to overlook is the future of civil rights.
At no point did Harris couple her statements about Massey’s being killed with any real plans to address future police violence in America.
Last month, after an Illinois sheriff’s deputy shot and killed Sonya Massey, a 36-year-old Black mother of two who had called police for help, Harris reached out to Massey’s family to offer her condolences. The vice president’s public comments echoed the widespread and noncontroversial sentiment that Massey deserved to be safe. Still, at no point did Harris couple her statements about Massey’s being killed with any real plans to address future police violence in America. It is unclear whether, in this pivotal moment, 10 years after a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, Harris and the Democratic Party are committed not only to protecting existing civil rights but also to expanding them.
For those who are concerned with addressing civil rights and police violence, and criminal justice in particular, Harris’ identity as a Black, Asian woman will not be enough. As her campaign begins to roll out more substantive policies around other issues, she must also lay out a concrete agenda around civil rights.
Harris’ past as a prosecutor — she was the self-proclaimed “top cop” in California — has generated some skepticism about what policing and criminal justice might look like in a Harris administration. Some of her critics’ concerns are based on a distortion of her record, if not downright misinformation. However, even for the most objective of people, Kamala Harris’ history with regard to criminal justice reform and civil rights can be described as complicated. While she is a Democrat, her policies and practices as a prosecutor would not rank anywhere near the more progressive end compared with those of many of her counterparts across the country. It would not be inaccurate to label her a centrist, at best, who at times acted more as a populist.
In communities of color especially, there’s a tenuous understanding of the role prosecutors play in relation to overall public safety and community. I say that as a former prosecutor myself. Though Black people want and deserve to live in safe communities, there are legitimate questions as to what role — if any — law enforcement should and can play in bringing about that safety.
We learned during President Barack Obama’s two terms in the Oval Office that a Black president, even when paired with a Black attorney general, does not mean the police will stop abusing and killing Black people. Whether it is a vigilante private citizen, as in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, or violence stemming directly from police, as in the cases of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, Atiana Jefferson and countless others whose ultimately went free, that a Black man was in office did not matter. So many Black people experienced violence at the hands of law enforcement during Obama’s presidency and Eric Holder’s time as the first Black U.S. attorney general, but they were generally powerless in terms of their ability to hold those offending police officers accountable.
The easiest and lowest-hanging fruit for Harris on the issue of police violence is to commit to the abolition of qualified immunity. This is the legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from accountability for wrongdoing. If Harris were to prioritize getting rid of qualified immunity as the bedrock of her civil rights agenda, it would immediately quell much of the apprehension around her candidacy from a civil rights perspective. Likewise, this is the time for her to lean in, not only with her words but also with substantive policy measures, to her experience as a prosecutor in addressing real criminal justice reform, as well as reform around policing. It would also distinguish her from Trump, who has called for “absolute immunity” for police.
Civil rights, fundamentally, is about access and the opening of doors. The blowback against DEI is, for example, at its core steeped in anti-Blackness but rooted in a pendulum swing away from civil rights. There are a host of issue areas in which Harris could seek to have influence under the banner of civil rights. A commitment to closing the achievement gap for Black boys is a civil rights issue in that a denial of equal access to quality educational opportunities is a violation of their federally protected civil rights. Likewise, access to the ballot is a civil right, and it is instructive that Harris has been vocal in this vein.
If Harris were to prioritize getting rid of qualified immunity as the bedrock of her civil rights agenda, it would quell much of the apprehension around her candidacy from a civil rights perspective.
Presidents are not lawmakers, but Harris ought to commit to using the insuperable power of the bully pulpit to apply pressure and influence policy. This is why an omission of substantive talking points around civil rights is glaring and unacceptable. While Harris can and should take a broad approach in setting forth an ambitious civil rights policy agenda, it’s imperative that she keep the main thing as the main thing and squarely address the issues of criminal justice reform, abolishing qualified immunity and eliminating police violence in America through substantive policy reform.
This week she will be on the biggest stage with the brightest lights and the loudest microphone. For the sake of Sonya Massey and so many others, Harris, with so many watching and listening, must present a plan.
