San Antonio Express-News (Sunday)
Castro: No ‘going back’ on police reform
WASHINGTON — Julián Castro was ahead of his time. The former Housing and Urban Development secretary talked about police reform during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency last year, but the issue hadn’t yet gained prominence for many Democrats.
That all changed in May with the death of George Floyd in Minnesota and subsequent
Black Lives Matter protests across the country. Together, they have created a transformational moment on the issue — both within the Democratic Party and for the country as a whole.
Castro spoke recently about the police defunding movement and the need for alternative responses to the police.
The conversation below has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Are you satisfied so far with the steps Democrats and other public officials have taken to reduce police violence?
A: In local communities across the country, important steps are being taken to reimagine public safety in the long term and to reduce police violence immediately. That ranges from new policies on banning choke holds and strangleholds to increasing transparency, increasing accountability in different ways. Same thing in Congress; the Justice in Policing Act that Democrats have put forward is a promising first step to reducing police violence, changing our system. I’m also glad to see what happened in Colorado. Gov. Polis on Juneteenth signed legislation that, among other things, bans choke holds and qualified immunity for police officers and increases transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
You know, some of the most exciting work is being done by mayors across the country who are reimagining public safety. In San Francisco, Mayor Breed is leading an effort to do just that. Mayors across the country should be asking themselves, how can we rely less on an armed police officer when we don’t need one and instead invest in those things that are better for a community’s quality of life, investment in mental health care services, in housing opportunity, in literacy and libraries?
That’s what they’re doing in San Francisco. They’ve begun that conversation in Austin, Los Angeles, and a number of other cities. So I’m happy to see that progress.
Q: Are Democrats feeling the pressure to respond to this like never before?
A: A number of pollsters have said … there’s more momentum for change on this issue than anything they’ve seen before.
So people who are sitting at the dinner table … thinking through how their local politician is doing, deciding whether they’re going to vote for this person — I’m confident this is higher on the priority list now, much higher than it used to be, in terms of people wanting to see results.
The other thing that is working in favor of change on policing is that for many communities across this country, their fiscal year budget starts on July 1 or Aug. 1 or Sept. 1. That means they’re going through the tough decision-making of scrutinizing budgets because of the coronavirus. They already have to scrutinize budgets because all types of revenue for cities is down, so it’s the optimal time to take another look at when you actually need an armed cop and when you don’t.
I’ve said many times you don’t need an armed cop to respond when two people get into a fender bender and they just need to make a report for insurance purposes. They don’t need a cop to respond just because someone is homeless, and we oftentimes have a police response just because someone has a mental health issue, even though the vast majority of cases, people who have mental health issues aren’t violent. That’s just a stigma around them, that they’re violent.
So if you think about the infrastructure of responding to calls for help by the public, maybe the best model to look at is 311. In so many communities across this country, 311 was developed as an alternative to 911 for people to report non-emergency issues. That was in a sense one big step in remimagining overall public quality of life and safety. I would encourage mayors and councils out there to extend that.
Q: Should local government be open to reducing spending on police forces?
A: Oh, I believe councils should be open to that with a plan. They need to look at understanding the opportunity cost there if you send an armed police officer into a situation where that’s not the best approach, like dealing with people who are homeless or dealing with people who have mental health challenges or an addiction challenge. Instead of sending a mental health professional, a social worker or a housing professional, really you’re losing out. It’s costing more money and you’re not doing as much as you could for the constituents you’re supposed to serve.
So I absolutely encourage and advise local communities to take a look exactly when they don’t need an armed police officer on a scene — and that’s the vast majority of interactions there, or a lot of them.
Q: Defunding the police has become a polarizing issue for some voters. Is it helpful for Democrats to frame the discussion that way?
A: Well, look, I think everybody is playing their role here. The calls to defund the police is a call that activists have made. Activists are playing the role they should play. Elected officials have a different role to play. They’re taking those aspirations and they’re translating them to both what can be done immediately and a long-term vision that we’re working toward.
So what I believe though is that there are absolutely steps that can be taken to both to save taxpayer dollars and increase public health and well-being and safety by reimagining how we do public safety.
Q: Are police unions going to continue to hold major sway over Democratic officials?
A: I don’t believe there’s any going back. Especially Democratic local elected officials know that they’re being watched by their constituents; their constituents have seen how unreasonable these police unions are. Look at that police union in Buffalo that applauded the two officers who were involved in shoving that 75-year-old elderly man to the ground and almost killing him, or any number of other actions that police unions have taken.
They have gone off the rails, they’re totally unreasonable, and too often they’re marked by a racist approach to policing, and they should not find support among Democratic politicians.
Q: But you’re confident the politics in the party have changed, and that’s not going to be acceptable anymore?
A: I am. I am confident that it’s a new day with an urgency to stand up for a system of law enforcement that is fair and one where officers who engage in this conduct are held accountable for their actions. And if police unions get in the way of that, as they often do, they cannot be supported.
Q: What worries you the most about the election?
A: Two things: continued interference from Russia. They’re going to try again to depress turnout among people of color, and they’re going to try and do whatever they can to help this president win again.
And then more broadly, we’re going to have an election that’s impacted still by the coronavirus. Our voters tend to be lowerpropensity voters that require what’s called the “knock and drag” — essentially pulling them out to go vote. It requires a lot of door-knocking and physical contact, physical interactions. We’re not going to have that. That gives me some pause, sure.