In the wake of national protests against police brutality and the murder of George Floyd, Sen. Kamala Harris is calling for major police reforms. But given her track record of opposing or remaining silent on similar reforms in California, we have some questions.
At a moment when the nation is focused on the intersection of police and race, Harris has a unique ability to speak to these matters. She also appears to have a very good chance of becoming Joe Biden's vice presidential nominee.
A clear explanation for why she now supports ideas that she previously opposed or ignored could help lead the nation toward change. It might also help prove she's not just another opportunistic politician who only supports things once they become popular.
In May, Harris came out in support of independent investigations for police shootings. Specifically, she called for a federal review of the police shooting of an African American woman named Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky.
But Harris opposed a 2015 bill by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, to require her California Department of Justice to review police-involved killings. A Harris adviser told The Washington Post in 2019 that Harris "was concerned about taking away authority from locally elected DAs (of which she is a former one) who are held accountable by their constituents."
This week, Harris called for the establishment of a national standard for when police may use force.
"It should not be that when prosecutors bring these cases around the country, the standard of proof is insurmountable because it only asks the question, 'Was, the use of excessive force reasonable,' instead of what the question should be, which is asking, 'Was that use of force necessary?'" Harris said, according to a story in Roll Call.
Harris' sudden support for creating a national use-of-force standard may surprise anyone who paid attention to the struggle to pass Assembly Bill 392 in 2019. The bill significantly revised the rules by which police in California can use force against citizens. It shifted the standard for when police can use deadly force from "reasonable" to "necessary." That's exactly what Harris is calling for now, but she remained silent last year despite multiple attempts by The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board to get a comment from her.
During an MSNBC interview with Joy Reid in May, Harris also touted her track record of support for police body-worn cameras.
"When I was attorney general of California, I believe I was the first state to require our agents to wear body cameras and keep them on," Harris said. "Because it's about transparency, it's about accountability. It's about justice."
But that's half of the story. It's true that AG Harris made history by requiring all California Department of Justice agents to wear body cameras in 2015. That same year, however, she also opposed a bill that would have made such cameras mandatory for law enforcement agencies across the state.
"I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all approach to this," Harris said at the time, adding that local law enforcement agencies should be able to decide for themselves whether to make the cameras mandatory.
It's good that Sen. Harris has finally come around on police reform and wants to lead in a time of crisis. But to be credible, she must spell out why it took her so long.
The most likely explanation: Law enforcement groups have tremendous power in our political system. They spend heavily to influence elections and their endorsements can help make or break political careers. They can scuttle a promising leader's electoral trajectory and kill important bills in committees.
Kamala Harris came up through a political system in which police endorsements meant everything. And it wouldn't have been smart for her to cross police groups once she attained the power they helped her win. She also knows that the law enforcement lobby will be the biggest obstacle to any kind of real and meaningful change on the issues of police brutality and accountability.
So, Harris must do more than support reforms she previously opposed. She must also expose the disproportionate amount of systemic power that law enforcement exerts in our politics. She can start by articulating the role it played in shaping her positions on these issues in the past.
It won't be comfortable or easy. But if she wants to be VP, Harris will need to inspire people to believe that individuals, laws and systems can undergo rapid, drastic and real changes.
