The Inside the Story of How Democrats Killed a Law That Could Have Saved Sandra Bland

[TimothyC]

In a fit of idiocy and confusion, Democrats in the Legislature not once but twice derailed bipartisan legislation prohibiting police from making arrests for minor infractions.

After Sandra Bland was arrested for a traffic infraction and later committed suicide in a Waller County jail in 2015, criminal justice reform advocates proposed reforms inspired by Bland’s case. Among the most important was a proposal to bar cops from arresting people for minor offenses punishable only by a fine. In 2017 law enforcement groups derailed the measure at the Legislature, even though it had broad support on both the left and right. But this year, the legislation looked like it would sail through. It had sixteen coauthors, including some of the most liberal and the most conservative members. On Wednesday, House Bill 2754 passed the House by a vote of 126 to 20.

But over the next two days, in an extraordinary series of events, the bill was brought back to the floor, killed, briefly resurrected, and then killed again, in a cloud of confusion and bad faith emanating predominantly from House Democrats. If it had been law in 2015, the bill might have saved Bland’s life. If passed by the Senate, it might have prevented as many as 40,000 people a year from being unnecessarily arrested.

Instead, it imploded and in the process became an object lesson in the many varieties of failure on offer at the Texas Legislature. House Bill 2754 died due to a toxic mixture of incompetence and bad faith in a lawmaking environment that speeds to a blur in the weeks at the end of the session, when it can be difficult for even veteran lawmakers to keep track of what’s going on on the floor. That creates fertile ground for mistakes and for interest groups to take advantage of those mistakes.

The trouble started just before the bill was passed, when its author, state representative James White, offered up a last-minute amendment. White is the only African American Republican at the Legislature, and it was in part thanks to his strong backing and the backing of other Republican groups that the bill had made it this far.

To understand what soon transpired, we’ve got to get into the weeds for just a moment. Bear with me. Currently, police have the discretion to arrest anyone for any Class C misdemeanor, minor offenses like traffic violations that aren’t punishable by jail time. The version of the bill that the House endorsed would have prohibited police from doing so except in a few specific circumstances, including instances when the person is an ongoing threat to public safety or when the officer has “probable cause” to believe the person “will not appear in court in accordance with the citation.” White’s amendment added an additional exemption in cases where the alleged offender fails to provide “appropriate identification” so as to allow the officer to write the citation.

State representative Shawn Thierry, a Democrat from Houston, rose to ask White about his change. If her nephew jaywalked on his way home from the neighborhood pool, could an officer arrest him if he didn’t have a driver’s license with him? White told the House that “identification” could include giving the officer a name, address, and date of birth.

It soon became clear that the two were talking past each other. Thierry incorrectly thought that White’s bill would expand the ability of police officers to arrest people for not having an ID. “The situation we have now is that they can do the warrantless arrests now with or without identification,” White pointed out. Cutting off Thierry’s questioning, he moved to vote on the bill. It passed easily.

But after the vote, Thierry and other Democrats continued to express their discomfort to White about the language of his last amendment. Scott Henson, a criminal justice blogger who advocated for the bill and wrote his own account of its failure, suggests that the amendment had been pushed by police groups like the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, or CLEAT, as a “poison pill” designed to stir up Democrats. If so, the tactic certainly worked. Several hours later, White bent to Democratic demands, making a motion to reconsider his own bill and redo the vote so that he could remove the language he had inserted.

Here’s where things got confusing. Before the bill could be passed again, Democratic state representatives Poncho Nevárez and Terry Canales blitzed the floor to speak to each other at the front and back mics. The bill needed to be killed outright, they argued. Nevárez amplified Thierry’s impression that the bill expanded, rather than constrained, police powers. “If the officer doesn’t like the cut of your jib,” Nevarez said, “he can now gin up the idea that you won’t show up, and for that you get thrown in the pokey.”

Canales backed him up. “If I’m driving home and I’m speeding and the officer believes in his mind that I’m not going to show up, he can take me to jail?” he asked incredulously. “This is what I think of that,” he said, ripping a piece of paper in half. The bill was “garbage.” It would result in many more arrests. “That’s your little girl, your son, your niece, your nephew,” he said. “If that’s the kind of Texas you want to live in, vote for this bill.”

It was a highly theatrical display, and one that seemed to miss a fundamental fact: Police can already make arrests for minor infractions, and White’s bill curbed that power, rather than expanded it. Instead of proposing changes to the bill to make it better, multiple Democrats rose to demand that the entire bill be deep-sixed.

State representative Erin Zweiner rose to ask Nevárez for clarification: things had moved quickly, and the motion to reconsider had come out of nowhere. “I suspect I am not alone in being a little bit out of sequence with what’s going on right now, so can I clarify, you’re speaking against the bill?” she asked. Yes, Nevárez said forcefully, speaking over Zweiner, “we’re on the bill now. I’m concerned about the bill.”

Then Thierry spoke again, expanding her critique of the bill. “This goes beyond the scope of anything that we could have fathomed constitutionally,” she said. When the vote to pass the bill a second time came down, it died 88 to 55. Just eight Democrats—those with the most knowledge of criminal justice issues—voted to preserve the bill.

So complete was the confusion that even some of the Blue Lives Matter Republicans who voted against the bill the first time, when it was framed as a restriction on law enforcement, voted for it the second time, when the floor debate depicted it as good for cops. Defeated and demoralized, White returned to his desk, where he started playing that night’s Houston Rockets game on his phone.

What happened? Many Democrats were simply confused or followed the lead of their colleagues. After the vote, Thierry wrote on Facebook that she had helped kill the bill because it expanded police powers, which is unequivocally untrue. Henson has suggested that it was all the handiwork of CLEAT. Many Democrats maintain warm relations with the powerful police union, and the confusion on the floor may have given them cover to vote down legislation they might have otherwise felt compelled to support.

“They took advantage of a moment, and that’s unfortunate,” said one Democratic representative who supported the bill, “and it’s unfortunate that someone was not able to explain this to Mrs. Thierry first.” Bottom line: Democrats preserved law enforcement’s ability to arrest people for minor offenses, a policing power that disproportionately affects African Americans and other traditional Democratic constituencies.

Afterwards, Democratic supporters of the bill fought to have a redo of the redo, a third vote. Initially, Democrats were optimistic it could be done. But White was reluctant. White’s colleagues in the House say he was disheartened and felt burned by Democrats, doubtful that they would come through. But eventually he relented, and a re-redo was held on Friday afternoon. At first, it appeared as if the motion had narrowly crossed the two-thirds threshold needed to take up the legislation. But it soon became clear that so many Democrats were absent that the legislation would narrowly fail. It was a Friday, and many lawmakers had already left town, even though they knew a do-over vote might happen. Thierry was present and voted in support of reviving the bill, but the other Democrats who had spoken in opposition—Nevárez, Canales, Harold Dutton—were gone. Even Eddie Rodriguez, who lives in Austin, had skedaddled.

The bill always faced an uphill battle in the Senate, but the implosion in the House gives the Senate a strong reason to not even consider it. Its failure has a real human cost—tens of thousands of people might have been spared the experience Bland had in 2015. In the aftermath, some Democrats tried to shift the blame to White and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen for not trying harder to save the bill. But it wouldn’t have needed saving if Democrats hadn’t killed it twice, first by action and then by inaction. White recalled the bill in the first place, one advocate said, because “he was doing Democrats a favor, which is a mistake I imagine he’ll never make again.”

Stupid is not limited to any one group.

[Gandalf]

A law was going to stop power tripping police?

[Jub]

A law was going to stop power tripping police?

No law in and of itself prevents crime. That said, stricter rules on police actions, combined with increased enforcement of said rules, are the only way we're going to be able to deescalate police powers at this point. This may have been a start to that or at least lead to charges that could start the ball rolling.

[The Romulan Republic]

What we really need is an outside organization specifically charged with investigating police abuse, one existing outside the Blue Wall, and with rules mandating that its hiring policies are representative of America's actual demographics as much as possible.

[Jub]

What we really need is an outside organization specifically charged with investigating police abuse, one existing outside the Blue Wall, and with rules mandating that its hiring policies are representative of America's actual demographics as much as possible.

As long as the crooked cops go to jail as opposed to paid leave and a job in the next county I don't care how it's done.

[The Romulan Republic]

What we really need is an outside organization specifically charged with investigating police abuse, one existing outside the Blue Wall, and with rules mandating that its hiring policies are representative of America's actual demographics as much as possible.

As long as the crooked cops go to jail as opposed to paid leave and a job in the next county I don't care how it's done.

A law prohibiting police who have been fired with cause or convicted of a crime from working as police in other forces would be a good idea too.

Paid leave makes a certain amount of sense, because to put them on leave without pay while being investigated would be punishing them before a conviction. That said, it makes a certain amount of sense to confiscate their pay from the day of the incident if they are subsequently found guilty.

[Jub]

A law prohibiting police who have been fired with cause or convicted of a crime from working as police in other forces would be a good idea too.

Paid leave makes a certain amount of sense, because to put them on leave without pay while being investigated would be punishing them before a conviction. That said, it makes a certain amount of sense to confiscate their pay from the day of the incident if they are subsequently found guilty.

Most other jobs wouldn't let you off with paid leave for the shit cops do on a regular basis, I get that they have a harder job than most but they should also have higher standards to go with them. When there are active warzones with more restrictive ToEs than most cops work under we should stop giving so much benefit of the doubt.

[The Romulan Republic]

A law prohibiting police who have been fired with cause or convicted of a crime from working as police in other forces would be a good idea too.

Paid leave makes a certain amount of sense, because to put them on leave without pay while being investigated would be punishing them before a conviction. That said, it makes a certain amount of sense to confiscate their pay from the day of the incident if they are subsequently found guilty.

Most other jobs wouldn't let you off with paid leave for the shit cops do on a regular basis, I get that they have a harder job than most but they should also have higher standards to go with them. When there are active warzones with more restrictive ToEs than most cops work under we should stop giving so much benefit of the doubt.

Given the state of the social safety net, or lack thereof, in the US, lack of income can land a family on the street real fast. Do

You say we shouldn't "let them off with paid leave for the shit cops do"- in other words, your post is tacitly assuming guilt, and then complaining about how "they're getting off" if we don't punish on accusation. Which is ironically much like the position of "tough on crime" types and abusive cops.

Hence my proposal of paid leave, but the income being confiscated by fines in the event they are found guilty. It avoids punishing those who haven't been found guilty, but also those who are found guilty continuing to make money at the public's expense while their case works through the courts/inquiry. That, to me, is justice.

Yeah, other people lose their pay for less, but I don't feel that the answer to an injustice should be "How can we make more people suffer from it, so everyone is suffering equally?" It should be "How can we protect more people, so everyone is benefiting equally. I am tired of people wanting "fairness" by pulling everyone down to the same level, rather than raising everyone up to the same level.

[Jub]

Given the state of the social safety net, or lack thereof, in the US, lack of income can land a family on the street real fast. Do

You say we shouldn't "let them off with paid leave for the shit cops do"- in other words, your post is tacitly assuming guilt, and then complaining about how "they're getting off" if we don't punish on accusation. Which is ironically much like the position of "tough on crime" types and abusive cops.

Tell me how shooting an unarmed person of color would go for you at your current job and then contrast that to how it often goes for police officers. See the difference in how we treat cops yet?

Hence my proposal of paid leave, but the income being confiscated by fines in the event they are found guilty. It avoids punishing those who haven't been found guilty, but also those who are found guilty continuing to make money at the public's expense while their case works through the courts/inquiry. That, to me, is justice.

I've been suspended without pay for missing a shift sick and failing to bring in a note. I don't think that it's unfair for a police officer, who will make more than I made at my job, to face suspension without pay for shooting somebody in a suspicious fashion.

Given how hard it will be to change the rules so that everybody has the job security of a police officer we should look at ensuring that they have the same level of job security as the rest of us. Perhaps then they'll show a little empathy while on duty.

Yeah, other people lose their pay for less, but I don't feel that the answer to an injustice should be "How can we make more people suffer from it, so everyone is suffering equally?" It should be "How can we protect more people, so everyone is benefiting equally. I am tired of people wanting "fairness" by pulling everyone down to the same level, rather than raising everyone up to the same level.

So every position should come with its own thin (insert color here) wall? Extrapolating further, should a cashier be able to shoot unarmed black people while at work or stop and frisk any customer they dislike? Sorry, Marsha, that coupon expired a month ago, I'm going to hold you for 24 hours because you tried to defraud our store.

I don't see that as any more desirable than the current situation.

[The Romulan Republic]

Tell me how shooting an unarmed person of color would go for you at your current job and then contrast that to how it often goes for police officers. See the difference in how we treat cops yet?

Pretends that my argument is "cops are treated no different than anyone else", which would make this a valid rebuttal.

Also, not all police abuse is something as aggregious as shooting unarmed people of color. There are a range of different levels of misconduct and crimes here.

I've been suspended without pay for missing a shift sick and failing to bring in a note. I don't think that it's unfair for a police officer, who will make more than I made at my job, to face suspension without pay for shooting somebody in a suspicious fashion.

What happened to you was unfair. But it is telling that your response is "I want other people to be treated unfairly too", rather than that "I want people to be treated fairly."

Given how hard it will be to change the rules so that everybody has the job security of a police officer we should look at ensuring that they have the same level of job security as the rest of us. Perhaps then they'll show a little empathy while on duty.

Your first valid point, but it still comes back to a) collectively regarding cops as the enemy, and b) wanting to punish people prior to their being found guilty.

So every position should come with its own thin (insert color here) wall? Extrapolating further, should a cashier be able to shoot unarmed black people while at work or stop and frisk any customer they dislike? Sorry, Marsha, that coupon expired a month ago, I'm going to hold you for 24 hours because you tried to defraud our store.

I don't see that as any more desirable than the current situation.

Not remotely what I said. Nothing in my post remotely points to supporting the Blue Wall or anything like it, nor would "not punishing everyone on suspicion" mean "not investigating". I already expressed my support for an independent organization to oversee investigations of police abuse. This is a bald-faced straw man.

But I get it- again, I'm the bad guy because I try to have a nuanced and fact-based position, instead of just hating the "right" class of people hard enough.

[Jub]

Also, not all police abuse is something as aggregious as shooting unarmed people of color. There are a range of different levels of misconduct and crimes here.

We can be more granular once that particular crime starts being punished appropriately.

Your first valid point, but it still comes back to a) collectively regarding cops as the enemy, and b) wanting to punish people prior to their being found guilty.

Is there ever a valid reason to escalate to deadly force against anybody who is unarmed? I don't believe so and thus every cop who shoots an unarmed suspect is guilty without any trial needed. I could care less if the officer was physically outmatched or thought there was a gun there should be zero tolerance towards shooting anybody without explicit need as is the case in other nations which may go so far as to require a warning shot before escalating to lethal force.

Not remotely what I said. Nothing in my post remotely points to supporting the Blue Wall or anything like it, nor would "not punishing everyone on suspicion" mean "not investigating". I already expressed my support for an independent organization to oversee investigations of police abuse. This is a bald-faced straw man.

You literally said, "I am tired of people wanting "fairness" by pulling everyone down to the same level, rather than raising everyone up to the same level." You said it in response to my wanting police to be treated the same as a minimum wage easily replaceable worker at a fast food joint, gas station, or grocery store. How can that be taken as anything less than you desiring all people to have the job security of a police officer?

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, not all police abuse is something as aggregious as shooting unarmed people of color. There are a range of different levels of misconduct and crimes here.

We can be more granular once that particular crime starts being punished appropriately.

Your first valid point, but it still comes back to a) collectively regarding cops as the enemy, and b) wanting to punish people prior to their being found guilty.

Is there ever a valid reason to escalate to deadly force against anybody who is unarmed? I don't believe so and thus every cop who shoots an unarmed suspect is guilty without any trial needed. I could care less if the officer was physically outmatched or thought there was a gun there should be zero tolerance towards shooting anybody without explicit need as is the case in other nations which may go so far as to require a warning shot before escalating to lethal force.

Not remotely what I said. Nothing in my post remotely points to supporting the Blue Wall or anything like it, nor would "not punishing everyone on suspicion" mean "not investigating". I already expressed my support for an independent organization to oversee investigations of police abuse. This is a bald-faced straw man.

You literally said, "I am tired of people wanting "fairness" by pulling everyone down to the same level, rather than raising everyone up to the same level." You said it in response to my wanting police to be treated the same as a minimum wage easily replaceable worker at a fast food joint, gas station, or grocery store. How can that be taken as anything less than you desiring all people to have the job security of a police officer?

Because there is a difference between "don't punish people until they're proven guilty" and "Never really investigate them/hold them accountable" (ie, the "Blue Wall"). One is fair, the other isn't.

Edit: Also, the fact that you actually said "guilty without an trial needed" says a great many not very nice things about your political views. In part because every time we set a precedent of making it easier to convict without a trial, well... its mostly not going to be those with power that precedent will be used against, if history is an indication.

If nothing else, you may need an/investigation trial to determine which officer(s) fired. Or do you just believe that all officers at the scene of a shooting should be found guilty without trial?

God damn it Jub, stop being such an ass hat that you force me to defend people and institutions I despise.

[Jub]

Because there is a difference between "don't punish people until they're proven guilty" and "Never really investigate them/hold them accountable" (ie, the "Blue Wall"). One is fair, the other isn't.

The first is only fair if the system can be found to reliably assess who is guilty and who isn't. The current system doesn't do that very well for regular citizens with sentences varying (sometimes wildly) due to such minor things as socio-economic status and skin color. Until that is fixed I think that there are cases where extrajudicial means of punishment are a decent stop-gap solution to a common problem.

Also, the fact that you actually said "guilty without an trial needed" says a great many not very nice things about your political views. In part because every time we set a precedent of making it easier to convict without a trial, well... its mostly not going to be those with power that precedent will be used against, if history is an indication.

If nothing else, you may need an/investigation trial to determine which officer(s) fired. Or do you just believe that all officers at the scene of a shooting should be found guilty without trial?

There are plenty of single officer shootings where the victim has no weapon on them. Are you saying that these cases are anything less than open and shut murder?

[The Romulan Republic]

Because there is a difference between "don't punish people until they're proven guilty" and "Never really investigate them/hold them accountable" (ie, the "Blue Wall"). One is fair, the other isn't.

The first is only fair if the system can be found to reliably assess who is guilty and who isn't. The current system doesn't do that very well for regular citizens with sentences varying (sometimes wildly) due to such minor things as socio-economic status and skin color. Until that is fixed I think that there are cases where extrajudicial means of punishment are a decent stop-gap solution to a common problem.

Right, because vigilantes are so often associated with fairness, and not with lynch mobs.

There are plenty of single officer shootings where the victim has no weapon on them. Are you saying that these cases are anything less than open and shut murder?

They're generally pretty open and shut, I'd think, but I still think its beneficial overall to go through the process of a trial, due to the dangers of precedent when it comes to punishing people without trial.

[Jub]

Right, because vigilantes are so often associated with fairness, and not with lynch mobs.

Not really what I was getting at... I was more referring to suspension without pay and other disciplinary actions that aren't a part of the judicial system.

They're generally pretty open and shut, I'd think, but I still think its beneficial overall to go through the process of a trial, due to the dangers of precedent when it comes to punishing people without trial.

So Kevin Spacey should have stayed on House of Cards until he was convicted of something then?

[The Romulan Republic]

Right, because vigilantes are so often associated with fairness, and not with lynch mobs.

Not really what I was getting at... I was more referring to suspension without pay and other disciplinary actions that aren't a part of the judicial system.

Fair enough.

So Kevin Spacey should have stayed on House of Cards until he was convicted of something then?

Yeah. That's the problem. How do we square the principle of "not punishing people on suspicion" with "rape victims deserve to be believed"? Because the last is also a principle I really don't want to throw out.