The Washington Post - USA (2022-04-03)

C4 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.SUNDAY, APRIL 3 , 2022

BY RICK HUTZELL

I

n wartime, the sacrifices jour-

nalists and photojournalists

make become distressingly

clear.

Brett Renaud, Pierre Zakrzews-

ki, Oleksandra Kuvshynova,

Yevhenii Sakun, Oksana Baulina

and Maks Levin died covering

Russia’s war on Ukraine. They

were professionals who put them-

selves at risk to report the truth.

Others are doing that same work

today.

I’m afraid more will die.

As Americans, we take a free

press for granted. We can choose

among news networks, national

and local newspapers, radio sta-

tions and Internet feeds. That is

not true in Russia, where dictator

Vladimir Putin has strangled in-

dependent voices to ensure his

narrative is the only one his nation

hears. More than 150 independent

journalists have fled the country

or are hiding to avoid arrest.

It is also not true in Mexico,

where an assassination campaign

targets journalists with impunity.

Eight journalists have been killed

there since the start of this year.

It is up to us as a nation, as a

people, to say a free press is some-

thing worth preserving. It is some-

thing to honor as a shared value

and as a fundamental necessity to

the future of functioning democ-

racy — at home and abroad.

That is why legislation was en-

acted authorizing the establish-

ment of a Fallen Journalists Me-

morial on public land in D.C. It will

demonstrate the United States’

commitment to a free press and

commemorate journalists who

sacrificed their lives in service to

that ideal. I’m proud to be part of

that work.

The concept sprang from the

June 28, 2018, attack against my

newsroom in Annapolis. Angered

by a 2011 column about his convic-

tion for using social media to ha-

rass a former high school class-

mate, a gunman ended the lives of

five of my colleagues at the Capital

Gazette.

With help and support, my fel-

low editors, reporters and photo-

journalists continued publishing

— aware that the roots of a free

press in our community dig back

beyond the American Revolution.

Of course, we would cover the

story, as well. The decision made

us a symbol of a free press. It won

the respect of our peers. We were

awarded a Pulitzer Prize and other

accolades. At a conference in

Houston, a South Korean journal-

ist told me we were an inspiration

to her country’s journalists.

We were not alone in our losses.

That was the year a vengeful Saudi

regime butchered Jamal

Khashoggi for his insightful com-

mentaries in The Post. That was

the year my staff was honored to

share the cover of Time magazine

with Khashoggi, courageous Fil-

ipina journalist Maria Ressa and

formerly jailed Myanmar report-

ers Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo.

Yet our triumph over tragedy

was a reminder that the mission of

a free press — even in the nation

whose Constitution lists it first

among our fundamental rights —

carries risks for all who dedicate

their lives to it.

A gunman murdered Virginia

television reporter Alison Parker

and photojournalist Adam Ward

during a live broadcast. Reporter

Charnice Milton was shot to death

as she left an assignment in a D.C.

neighborhood suffering a ram-

page of gun crimes. Beloved New

Orleans TV news anchor Nancy

Parker died in a plane crash while

covering a trailblazing African

American stunt pilot.

Today, anyone with a cellphone

can play at journalism. That’s why

reporters, photographers and edi-

tors committed to ethics and stan-

dards matter more than ever.

Truth matters. Accountability

matters. Courage matters.

Journalists showing the bravery

and tragedy of the Ukrainian peo-

ple daily have made clear the con-

sequences of Putin’s senseless war.

As we read, see and hear the results

of their work daily, we as a nation

understand what is happening. We

see the statements from Russia’s

state media for what they are:

propaganda. History is numbered

with professionals such as Re-

naud, Zakrzewski, Kuvshynova,

Sakun and Baulina who die to

bring us news that dictators and

demagogues will threaten and kill

to block. National consensus can

be reached only through informed

citizens. That is the function of a

free press in a democracy.

It’s true for local journalists,

too. Coverage of council meetings

keeps our elected officials honest;

opinion pages quiet the rancor

among competing ideologies; and

reports on high school sports

build a sense of community.

So, in addition to physical space

for commemoration, the Fallen

Journalists Memorial will provide

educational programming to re-

mind future generations about the

contributions of journalism to

preserve democracy and the many

forms of a free press protected by

the First Amendment.

This nation needs a memorial

to the work of my colleagues in

Annapolis, those killed in Ukraine

and those risking their lives today

on a European battlefield — but

also to the thousands of journal-

ists pursuing the truth every day

across the United States and

around the world.

The writer is a member of the Fallen

Journalists Memorial Foundation’s

board of advisers. He left the Capital

Gazette in 2021 and now publishes

the newsletter Meanwhile, in

Annapolis.

A Fallen Journalists Memorial will honor what journalists died to protect

BY MILEAH KROMER

T

he statewide election cycle has undoubtedly en-

tered its spring awakening. The first television ads

have launched, major state players are finalizing

their endorsements and cutting checks, and candi-

dates’ dance cards are filling up with various town halls

and voter forums.

For the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, given the

considerable diversity of their much larger primary elec-

torate, that also means finalizing strategies aimed at

winning over voters who hold competing preferences,

ideologies and expectations on issue positions. Most can-

didates have offered broad policy platforms on everything

from educational equity to climate change to addressing

social justice issues. Some among them are innovative and

have the potential to make life better for many residents.

But even if these proposals are celebrated among

Democratic primary voters, they might not create a path to

a general-election victory. In fact, some Democratic insid-

ers continue to view the past two election cycles as merely a

function of the shortcomings of their candidates while

refusing to accept the harder truth: Larry Hogan (R) is a

two-term governor because his fiscally focused campaign

messaging appealed to more voters, including about a

third of their own in 2018. And the recent Goucher College

Poll, conducted in early March, suggests that economic

and pocketbook issues will once again play a significant

role in determining the outcome of the election.

For starters, along with public safety and education,

voters identified economic issues as a top priority they

wanted state government to address. More than half of

Maryland residents indicated that they faced major (30

percent) or minor (26 percent) hardships because of

recent price increases. Fewer than 20 percent said their

economic situation was better than it was last year, while a

third said it had gotten worse. Voter attitudes were also

split between whether the state government should spend

a historic budget surplus driven by federal pandemic relief

funds on “increasing funding for public services” or “tax

cuts.”

Perhaps most telling is that nearly 40 percent of Demo-

crats and more than half of independent voters — who

make up about three-quarters of the electorate — leaned

toward cutting taxes. That appears to a be a shift from the

past. Previous polls have consistently shown that these

same voters consistently believed that the state was

spending “too little” to fund public education and even

supported increasing taxes to improve public education.

Recent moves by Democrats in the General Assembly

demonstrate that they understand the importance of

pocketbook concerns, particularly those of working-class

Marylanders. This legislative session, their leadership has

offered a series of tax cuts to ease the burden of child care

and necessities such as diapers and medical equipment.

They’ve also proposed a state version of the federal Work

Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a tax break for

companies that hire residents from low-income neighbor-

hoods, military veterans, those with criminal records, the

long-term unemployed and individuals with disabilities.

Several Democratic lawmakers have also introduced mea-

sures aimed directly at affordability issues regarding

education and transportation, as well as economic mobili-

ty. Most recently, Democrats and Hogan fast-tracked a bill

that suspended the state’s gas tax for a month and reached

an agreement on tax cuts for low-income families, retirees

and small businesses.

But the recent moves of the Maryland General Assembly

won’t change the views of the average voter overnight, if at

all. The governor is again proposing a broad set of tax cuts

and incentives. And polling over the past seven years has

consistently found that Hogan holds a clear advantage

over Democrats on handling the state’s economy and

tax-related issues. Despite expressing some pretty clear

economic anxiety, residents maintained a “mostly posi-

tive” view of the state economy and don’t appear to blame

Hogan for their current financial troubles. Hogan earned

strong approval even among those facing hardships over

the price increases and those who thought they are “worse”

off financially than they were a year ago. For comparison,

President Biden’s approval rating dropped significantly

among those who express negative economic attitudes.

There is good reason for Democratic candidates to

spotlight economic issues and even tax relief in their

respective campaigns, particularly if gubernatorial candi-

date Kelly Schulz wins the Republican primary and effec-

tively positions herself as the continuation of Hogan’s

economic policies. Indeed, the best-laid policy plans of the

Democratic candidates will again fall flat if average voters

don’t trust them to spend their tax dollars wisely. And no

one should expect a statewide victory if they can’t win on

the economy.

The writer is director of the Sarah T. Hughes Center for Politics at

Goucher College.

Economic attitudes

in Maryland

could decide

the governor’s race

and not the locally elected D.C. attor-

ney general. This authority is unlike

the arrangement in any of the 50

states, where the U.S. attorney’s office

prosecutes federal crimes and the

local prosecutor handles locally en-

acted crimes. This change would en-

able the local populace to control

basic policy decisions relating to

crime. For example, whereas the local

populace has made clear its opposi-

tion to the death penalty, the federal

government, at least under the previ-

ous presidential administration, was

keen to carry out death sentences.

Similarly, differences have emerged

on marijuana policy between the

local government and the federal

government. Putting the prosecution

of local crimes in the hands of a

locally elected prosecutor would al-

low the residents of D.C. to have a

greater say in crime-fighting policies.

A revision of the Home Rule Act

could also provide exclusive control

over D.C.'s budget to the locally elect-

ed government. The Home Rule Act

provides that Congress has ultimate

and exclusive control over D.C.‘s

budget. The situation is confused

because of two conflicting judicial

decisions relating to the D.C. Budget

Autonomy Act passed by the D.C.

Council several years ago. A federal

district court ruled that the local act,

giving final authority over locally

raised revenue to the D.C. Council,

violated the congressional Home

Rule Act and the federal Antidefi-

ciency Act (which prohibits the feder-

al and D.C. governments from spend-

ing funds not appropriated by Con-

gress) and was thus invalid and un-

enforceable. A subsequent D.C.

Superior Court decision claimed that

the Budget Act was compatible with

these federal statutes. Neither deci-

sion received appellate review. The

D.C. Council and Congress have acted

as if each has the final say over D.C.'s

budget. The problem festers, unre-

solved. This potential conflict could

be resolved if Congress were to

amend the Home Rule Act and au-

thorize the local government to have

full control over its locally raised

budget and the final decision on how

locally imposed tax revenue of D.C.

residents is spent.

Another salutary change to the

Home Rule Act would allow the may-

or to appoint the local judges with

the approval of the D.C. Council rath-

er than requiring presidential ap-

pointment with the consent of the

Senate. Though presidential ap-

pointments over the past several

years have been sound, the Senate

has not been diligent or attentive to

the confirmation process, leading to

prolonged vacancies on the D.C. Su-

perior Court and the D.C. Court of

Appeals, causing massive delays in

resolution of cases and undue bur-

dens on sitting judges. There is no

sound policy reason for involving the

federal government in the selection

of local judges. In all 50 states, the

selection of local judges is handled

locally, either by election or appoint-

ment. Local appointment would not

reduce the quality of the local judici-

ary and would likely eliminate the

prolonged vacancies that have such a

deleterious effect on justice for D.C.

residents.

The compromises that were neces-

sary to obtain passage of the Home

Rule Act are no longer needed or

salutary. The performance of the D.C.

government over the past 50 years,

and particularly in the past few dec-

ades, has demonstrated that it is well

equipped to handle its own affairs,

without the control or supervision of

the federal government. If statehood

is not feasible now, Congress should

promptly review and eliminate many

of the limitations in the Home Rule

Act so D.C. residents can take more

control over their own governance.

The writer is a former D.C. attorney

general and former general counsel of

the U.S. House of Representatives.

BY JILL BABCOCK KERN

I

was overjoyed to hear a few

weeks ago that the Arlington

School Board had decided to

fund the purchase of a new

projector for the David M. Brown

Planetarium because the company

that manufactured the current pro-

jector has decided to end technical

support for that particular model.

Then came the stunning news that

the superintendent of Arlington

schools had decided to eliminate

funding in the school budget for a

new director, effectively putting off

the reopening of the planetarium for

another year.

Since it was closed three years ago

while the Arlington Education Cen-

ter next door underwent renovation ,

and the expected reopening was fur-

ther delayed by the coronavirus pan-

demic, putting off the reopening for

yet another year seems unconsciona-

ble.

A year might not seem long from

an adult perspective, but from a

child’s point of view, a whole year

without the unique and very valuable

experience of visiting a planetarium

can eliminate a source of inspiration

that would be difficult to find any-

where else.

The Arlington Planetarium can

provide an experience that I took for

granted when I was a child growing

up in Arlington. Living across the

street from the forested ravine where

Interstate 66 was eventually built, I

could marvel at a night sky spangled

with stars whenever I wanted to. The

Milky Way was easy to see, and I

clearly remember my mother point-

ing out Sputnik, the Russian satellite,

as it slowly made its way across the

sky in 1957. Today’s children might be

able to make out the International

Space Station if they have a knowl-

edgeable adult to help them, but they

have to travel quite a distance from

the center of Arlington to find a sky

dark enough to reveal the Milky Way.

Why is this important? There are

some experiences that are very diffi-

cult to duplicate, or even evoke, in

the typical classroom or auditorium.

On the other hand, for most people

(whatever their ages), seeing the

night sky replicated inside the dome

of our planetarium evokes the same

kind of wonder that was once avail-

able in the sky above our backyards.

That’s an experience that rarely

occurs in the typical classroom: awe.

I think Albert Einstein would have

understood. As a child, he was a

mediocre student who later came up

with theories that revolutionized our

understanding of the universe. He

wrote: “Imagination is more impor-

tant than knowledge. For knowledge

is limited, whereas imagination em-

braces the entire world, stimulating

progress, giving birth to evolution.”

The cost of hiring a new director

for Arlington’s planetarium for this

coming school year might seem high,

but delaying that expense does not

seem like a bargain when it means

denying Arlington’s students a whole

year of inspiration. Who knows? One

of them might become the next

Einstein — or another scientific pio-

neer.

The writer is a member of the Fr iends of

Arlington’s David M. Brown Planetarium.

Arlington schools should fund the Brown Planetarium

BY IRVIN B. NATHAN

U

ltraconservative Republi-

cans, eagerly anticipating

taking control of the House

in this November’s midterm

elections, are proclaiming a desire to

cut back or eliminate the limited

home rule that Congress granted D.C.

in 1973. If the Senate retains the

filibuster or a Democrat remains in

the White House, this threat is un-

likely to be fulfilled. But it should be a

call to action to the Democratic-con-

trolled Congress and the president to

expand the limited powers of self-

government to D.C., including legis-

lative and budget autonomy and

criminal law policy and enforcement.

Statehood is long overdue and

justified for a population that ex-

ceeds that of Vermont and Wyoming

and nearly matches that of several

Western states. The House, in a most-

ly party-line vote, passed a D.C. state-

hood bill. The Senate has not taken

up the bill and is not likely to pass it.

Republicans in the Senate don’t want

the two additional Democratic sena-

tors D.C. statehood would bring. A

subsidiary factor is that Maryland

and Virginia residents who work in

D.C. could face a commuter tax, re-

ducing revenue in Maryland and Vir-

ginia.

For the immediate future, D.C.

should seek expanded home rule. In

preparation for that far-off day when

justice trumps political expediency

and D.C. is granted statehood, activ-

ists should be seeking to expand

D.C.'s authority to govern its resi-

dents by eliminating or modifying

restrictions that were imposed as a

necessary compromise to obtain lim-

ited home rule in 1973.

A bill before the D.C. Council illus-

trates the problem. To cut back on

undue incarceration in federal pris-

ons, particularly of Black youths, the

bill provides that all people younger

than 21 charged with a crime shall be

prosecuted in juvenile court, except

when the circumstances warrant the

D.C. attorney general to seek a court

order to move the matter to adult

criminal court. This is a fine idea,

except that it violates the Home Rule

Act, which provides that the D.C.

Council can pass no legislation that

would alter or modify the powers of

the U.S. attorney. Under laws that

existed before home rule, the U.S.

attorney can directly file criminal

charges in adult court against youths

16 and older who are charged with

very serious offenses. And the U.S.

attorney’s office can charge anyone

18 or older who has allegedly violated

any local criminal law.

More broadly, there is no good

policy reason that local felonies

should be prosecuted exclusively by

the federally appointed U.S. attorney

A better focus: Expanded D.C. home rule

AMANDA ANDRADE-RHOADES FOR THE WASHINGTON POST

D.C. statehood advocates at the Make Good Trouble Rally in August.

Local Opinions

WASHINGTONPOST.COM/LOCALOPINIONS. [email protected]