Politics is partly about hashing out differences — differences in policy, differences in opinion, differences in worldview.
But lawmakers shouldn’t respond to these differences with underhanded tactics that emasculate voters.
That is exactly what happened with the passage of state legislation that singled out and punished Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner.
Since taking office in 2018, Mr. Krasner has placed himself at the forefront of criminal justice reform with an overarching goal of significantly reducing incarceration. His agenda — which includes easing bail requirements and no longer pursuing criminal charges for marijuana possession — has been widely applauded by progressive advocates. Those in law enforcement have been less enthusiastic, taking out billboards to criticize Mr. Krasner and his policies.
Particularly controversial has been Mr. Krasner’s decision to send more gun-possession cases through a court diversion program. Mr. Krasner has argued that this strategy will avoid overly punishing a “small category” of people with otherwise clean records. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, meanwhile, has implied that Mr. Krasner’s strategy has sent the wrong message — one of leniency — to would-be criminals.
And so as state lawmakers were debating HB 1614, a bill originally intended to help small municipalities obtain easier access to attorney general resources, state Rep. Martina White, R-Philadelphia, slipped a provision into the bill that gave Mr. Shapiro “concurrent jurisdiction” over gun offenses in Philadelphia.
In other words, certain gun offense cases Mr. Krasner passes on in the name of criminal justice reform could still be tried at the state level by Mr. Shapiro. This amendment only affects cases in Philadelphia and has a two-year sunset clause, timed with the end of Mr. Krasner’s first term.
This is an affront to the voters who put Mr. Krasner in office. His performance is solely for the voters of Philadelphia to judge in the next election. Legislators have no right to interfere.
Gov. Tom Wolf signed the legislation into law earlier this month and, after Mr. Krasner’s office raised objections about Ms. White’s amendment, a number of Democratic lawmakers admitted that they either did not carefully read the provision or did not understand its language.
Slipshod work by legislators is par for the course, but this takes laziness to new heights.
Mr. Shapiro wisely responded to public pressure from criminal justice reform advocates by stating: “I didn’t ask for this law, I don’t want this law.” He also said he supports repealing the law and, as long as it is in place, will not prosecute cases Mr. Krasner does not choose to pursue.
But Pennsylvania residents should still be alarmed about what this episode says about the state of politics in the commonwealth.
One need not agree with Mr. Krasner’s prosecutorial style to see the danger in legislation that targets individual DAs and gives the state the power to usurp local rule. It is not hard to imagine how this tactic could be abused in the future, against people of all political persuasions.
Ms. White’s amendment should be repealed, and those involved should then take a moment to think about their vision for politics in Pennsylvania. The people of this state deserve better.
Correction: House Bill 1614 gives the attorney general “concurrent jurisdiction” on certain firearm offenses in Philadelphia. An earlier version of this editorial indicated it had a broader purpose.
First Published: July 25, 2019, 10:00 a.m.