Tim Murphy

Tim Murphy

Reporter

Tim Murphy is a reporter in MoJo's DC bureau. Last summer he logged 22,000 miles while blogging about his cross-country road trip for Mother Jones. His writing has been featured in Slate and the Washington Monthly. Email him with tips and insights at tmurphy [at] motherjones [dot] com.

Get my RSS |

Study: Blacks Twice as Likely as Whites to Get Death Penalty in This Texas County

| Wed Mar. 13, 2013 9:39 AM PDT
Justice

In September of 2011, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Texas death row inmate Duane Buck, who was given a death sentence in 1997 for the murder of an ex-girlfriend and a male acquaintance. The reason: Buck's race (he's black) was cited by a psychologist—whose testimony was in turn cited by the prosecutor—as evidence that he may pose a threat to other inmates should he be sentenced to life in prison. Texas' Republican attorney general in 2002, now-Sen. John Cornyn, recommended that Buck and six other inmates in similar situations be tried again; Buck is the only one who hasn't. Buck's case has since returned to the state courts, and his attorneys are still appealing for a re-trial. (No one disputes his actual guilt.)

On Wednesday, Buck's attorneys released a new report from University of Maryland criminology professor Ray Paternoster examining the impact race played on sentencing in Harris County (which includes Houston, where Buck was tried) from 1992 to 1999. Paternoster examined 504 cases. The takeaway:

The probability that the district attorney will advance a case to a penalty trial is more than three times as high when the defendant is African-American than for white defendants (this includes Mr. Buck’s case). This disparity by race of the defendant, moreover, cannot be attributed to observed case characteristics because these cases are those that were most comparable in terms of the estimated propensity score.

This racial disparity is only partially corrected at the jury sentencing stage...Ultimately, among this group of comparable cases a death sentence was twice as likely to be imposed on an African American defendant as a white defendant.

You can read his full report here:

 

The race of the perpetrator isn't the only variable likely to influence sentencing decisions. According to Amnesty International, "the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

GOP Congressman Still Wants to Ban "Obamaphones"

| Tue Mar. 12, 2013 9:55 AM PDT
ObamaphoneYou're the racist for thinking this is racist.

The low point of the 2012 presidential election may have come on September 27th, when Matt Drudge linked to a YouTube video of a somewhat-crazy-sounding black woman from Ohio explaining that she was voting for President Obama because he gave her a free phone. The conservative blogosphere (and conservative cable news, and conservative syndicated columnists, and conservative talk radio) blew up.

The shocking truth: Obama hadn't really given the woman a free phone. It was a product of a Reagan-era program called "Lifeline," which grants a subsidy to phone service providers in order to ensure that the very poor—those at 135 percent of the poverty line or below—have some way of dialing out in case of emergencies. Under President George W. Bush, that service expanded to cell phones.

But Congress being today's Congress, there's now a push to deep-six the Lifeline program. Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.), who introduced a bill in 2012 to scale back the program, announced some progress on Tuesday:

As Griffin explains on his congressional website, "[D]ead people are receiving free cell phones in the mail, eligible and ineligible individuals are obtaining more than one, and electronic kiosks have been stationed in convenience stores to spread the word about this 'free' opportunity." To some extent, he has a point; there was a lot of fraud and abuse within the Lifeline program. But as Factcheck.org noted last year, Griffin ignored the fact that the feds were already reining in the Lifeline program—and the phone companies that exploited it:

The FCC, however, overhauled the program in February, enacting changes that call for building databases to confirm beneficiaries’ eligibility and to identify duplicate subscriptions. The FCC also slashed 75 percent of available subsidies for the program, which eliminated a "perverse" incentive for some phone companies to enroll ineligible persons. The FCC projects its modifications will save up to $2 billion over three years.

So: Obama isn't giving everyone free phones. The FCC is already fixing the program. A viral right-wing meme is wrong—stop me if that sounds familiar.

A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage

| Fri Mar. 8, 2013 10:09 AM PST
wedding cake

Supporters of gay marriage may not be welcome at CPAC, but they're making huge strides everywhere else. On Thursday, Jan van Lohuizen and Joel Benenson, top campaign pollsters respectively for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, released a new study on attitudes toward marriage equality, based on 2012 exit poll data. The short of it: Even young Republicans think conservatives are fighting a losing battle.

While 53 percent of eligible voters support marriage equality, 83 percent believe same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide within five to 10 years. And for the first time, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 support marriage equality at the state level. (Fifty-one percent do.) According to Benenson and Lohuizen, the only major demographic that still opposes same-sex marriage is white, evangelical Christians.

The study, commissioned by the pro-marriage equality group Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, didn't get around to asking eligible voters about their attitudes toward sushi, but we think we have a pretty good idea where they fall:

 

Texas Rep. Wants a George W. Bush National Park

| Thu Mar. 7, 2013 8:37 AM PST
Bush homePresidents George H.W. and George W. Bush commemorate the opening of the George W. Bush Childhood Home museum.

President George W. Bush gutted environmental standards, ignored the threat of climate change, and presided over a scandal-plagued Department of the Interior*—making him a natural choice to be the central focus of America's next national park.

According to the Abilene (Texas) Reporter News, that's exactly GOP Rep. Mike Conaway wants. Conaway, a former business partner of Bush who represents the former president's hometown of Midland, secured a $25,000 federal grant for a "reconnaissance survey" of Bush's childhood home earlier this year:

The reconnaissance survey "will merely examine whether the site is worthy of inclusion," Conaway said Monday in a statement.

Conaway of Midland requested the study "on behalf of proud Texans who wish to see the home of two American presidents elevated to national status and become part of the National Park System" in an Aug. 27 letter to now outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. President Bill Clinton's childhood home in Hope, Ark. was officially dedicated as a national park in 2011. Even James Buchanan, who is held in even worse esteem among historians than Bush, has a place of honor in Lancaster, Penn. And Bush's home in Midland has already been converted into a private museum. The museum is currently looking for someone to donate a vintage washing machine, and even has an online store which sells marbles, for some reason:

George W. Bush Childhood Home

In that light, the George W. Bush National Park is probably inevitable. But look on the bright side: This would be the perfect place to display those paintings.

*In fairness, this describes the Department of the Interior for most of its existence.

N.H. Republican Lawmakers Allege Missing Constitutional Amendment Was Purposely Deleted in 1871

| Mon Mar. 4, 2013 10:48 AM PST
National TreasureWe're pretty sure HB 638 is the plot of the next "National Treasure" movie.

For 142 years, the federal government has kept a secret: A little-known constitutional amendment, designed to prevent people with "titles of nobility" from holding public office, was ratified in 1819 before being deleted from the document as part of a conspiracy by power-hungry lawyers and bankers. But the original 13th Amendment is technically still on the books; we just don't know it.

At least, that's the allegation being made by three New Hampshire Republican legislators. Last week, state Reps. Stella Tremblay, Al Baldasaro, and Lars Christiansen introduced HB 638, requiring the state to recognize the original, hidden 13th Amendment amendment.

Here's the relevant text:

III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, otherwise known as the Act of 1871, created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act revoked prior legislation relative to the district's municipal charter and, most egregiously, led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.

V. The purpose of this act is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land. The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

And here's the shocking truth: Tremblay, Baldasaro, and Christiansen don't have their facts straight.

The amendment in question, known as the Titles of Nobility Amendment, did come quite close to passing—at least at first. With Americans wary of the threat posed by Great Britain and Napoleonic France, the proposal was approved by both branches of Congress and 12 states, only to be put on ice during the War of 1812. By the war's end, the momentum had been lost, and the addition of new states to the union made the threshold for passage that much higher. It was never ratified.

Notwithstanding that detail, the idea of a stealth constitutional amendment has gained traction on the far right. It began in the early 1990s, when a publication called AntiShyster (which is what it sounds like) alleged that the original 13th Amendment was, in fact, on the books, and that it barred lawyers from holding office. As this 1999 article in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal documented, the "thirteenther" conspiracy has since been embraced by anti-government extremists who have alleged that the secret amendment gives them cover to kill police officers.

This isn't the first time the missing amendment has been raised as a political cudgel. In 2010, the Republican Party of Iowa called for "the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th amendment in today's Constitution."

The missing constitutional amendment might not make for very good legislation, but perhaps it's not as terrible of a concept as it sounds. Here's an idea: National Treasure III.

Mon Feb. 14, 2011 11:04 AM PST
Sat Feb. 12, 2011 4:57 PM PST
Fri Feb. 11, 2011 9:40 AM PST
Thu Feb. 10, 2011 4:00 AM PST
Tue Feb. 8, 2011 7:00 AM PST
Fri Feb. 4, 2011 5:00 PM PST
Fri Jan. 28, 2011 5:34 PM PST
Wed Jan. 26, 2011 3:59 PM PST
Wed Jan. 26, 2011 11:00 AM PST
Thu Jan. 6, 2011 11:20 AM PST
Thu Dec. 30, 2010 12:00 PM PST
Mon Dec. 27, 2010 11:34 AM PST
Wed Dec. 22, 2010 4:43 PM PST
Mon Dec. 20, 2010 12:55 PM PST
Mon Dec. 20, 2010 11:31 AM PST
Wed Dec. 15, 2010 1:41 PM PST
Wed Dec. 15, 2010 6:00 AM PST
Fri Dec. 10, 2010 4:00 AM PST
Mon Nov. 29, 2010 12:35 PM PST
Mon Nov. 29, 2010 4:35 AM PST
Sun Nov. 28, 2010 9:29 AM PST
Wed Nov. 24, 2010 9:28 AM PST
Fri Nov. 19, 2010 5:30 PM PST
Fri Nov. 19, 2010 11:44 AM PST
Thu Nov. 18, 2010 12:18 PM PST
Wed Nov. 10, 2010 4:00 AM PST
Tue Nov. 2, 2010 10:51 PM PDT
Sat Oct. 30, 2010 3:47 PM PDT
Fri Oct. 29, 2010 10:21 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 26, 2010 5:00 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 22, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 20, 2010 5:03 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 20, 2010 4:00 AM PDT
Sat Oct. 9, 2010 11:00 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 8, 2010 3:00 AM PDT