Antilynching bill runs into late snag
WASHINGTON — In raw remarks on the Senate floor, Sen. Kamala Harris called an effort to amend her antilynching legislation “cruel and deliberate obstruction” on the day the country mourned George Floyd.
The California Democrat and Sen. Cory Booker, DN.J., were responding Thursday to an effort by Sen. Rand Paul, RKy., to amend their legislation that would make lynching a federal crime — something past Congresses have repeatedly failed to do.
Booker and Harris, two of the Senate’s three black members, delivered emotional remarks criticizing Paul’s insistence on an 11thhour change that threw the bill’s final passage into doubt the day a memorial service was held for Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis police last week.
“It is painful to be standing here right now, especially when people of all races are marching in the streets of America outraged by the hate and the violence and the murder that has been fueled by racism during the span of this country’s life,” Harris said.
Paul, who did not object to an almost identical earlier version of the bill, now says it would define lynching too broadly, to include assaults as well as murder. He said he knew he would be “excoriated” for his stance, but that it was the right one.
The backandforth could be a preview of the upcoming fight to pass comprehensive police reform legislation. Harris and Booker are leading negotiations for Senate Democrats with House members of the Congressional Black Caucus on a package of legislation that will be unveiled Monday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DSan Francisco, has said the legislation will get a vote in the House.
Harris and Booker joined with Sen. Tim Scott, RS.C., the only other African American senator, to sponsor the bill making lynching a federal crime and recognizing its history in the U.S. It passed the Senate unanimously in February 2019. Paul registered no objection at the time — his staff said he was out of town for the vote.
The bill languished in the House for a year, until a virtually identical piece of legislation passed in February with only four “no” votes. But because the House version was slightly different and renamed, the Senate must now pass that legislation or both chambers must go through a formal reconciliation.
Instead of letting the bill pass unanimously again, which would quicken the process, Paul objected. He is seeking to raise the standard that would qualify as lynching. He argues that the way the bill is written, slapping a person out of racial animus might count.
Booker and Harris spoke at length to oppose the change, which would once again require House action and prolong the process.
“This idea that somehow someone would be brought up on lynching charges for a slapping is absurd,” Booker said.
He said he has worked with Paul on past criminal justice reforms and that the Kentucky Republican usually has his heart in the right place. But this time, he said, Paul is on the wrong side of history.
Passing the bill as is, on Thursday, “would not only do something substantive ... but God, it would speak volumes to the racial pain and the hurt of generations,” Booker said.
“I do not need my colleague, the senator from Kentucky, to tell me about one lynching in this country,” he said. “I’ve stood in the museum in Montgomery, Ala., and watched African American families weeping at the stories of pregnant women lynched in this country and their babies ripped out of them while this body did nothing.”
Paul said the law already bans lynching, and that he was merely trying to improve the language to prevent “unintended consequences” and overzealous prosecutions.
“You think I take great joy in being here? No,” he said. “You think I’m getting any good publicity out of this? No. I will be excoriated by simpleminded people on the internet . ... But we can’t just not read our bills.”
But Harris said Paul was trying to weaken the bill.
“There is no reason for this,” Harris said. “Sen. Paul’s amendment would place a greater burden on victims of lynching than is currently required under federal hate crimes laws. There is no reason for this. There is no reason other than cruel and deliberate obstruction on a day of mourning.”