All politics is personal
If you needed a reminder that lots of politicians take their jobs personally, it came Monday with news that Robert Shuler Smith, the Hinds County district attorney, is running for governor.
Smith had to make the announcement himself because the state Democratic Party is keeping its list of candidates under wraps until qualifying closes on March 1. But it’s easy to guess why Smith is running: to get back at Attorney General Jim Hood, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination to succeed Gov. Phil Bryant.
Hood, you will recall, has prosecuted Smith three times on criminal charges — and lost each time. Smith must be the only public figure or corporation against whom Hood is 0-for-3.
Now, it certainly is fair to wonder whether a three-term district attorney ought to run for the state’s highest office when he gets accused — and acquitted — of charges like hindering prosecution (Smith was accused of helping a defendant who faced multiple criminal charges) and robbery (the jury also could not reach a verdict in a case involving a woman that Smith had dated).
The answer, obviously, is no. But it’s a free country, and if anyone has the incentive to go after Hood’s record, Smith is the guy. In fact, the person happiest about this news has to be Tate Reeves, expected to be Hood’s Republican opponent in the general election. Hood so far will face Smith and retired Jackson State employee Velesha P. Williams in this year’s Democratic primary. Smith’s entry into the race makes it safe to say two things: Hood remains the favorite, and any debate between these candidates is bound to be fascinating.
Jack Ryan, Enterprise-Journal
Court is unanimous
in civil forfeiture
The U.S. Supreme Court often is as divided as the rest of the country. It is possible, then, that the justices occasionally take a case upon which they can all agree.
Indiana’s law enforcement and court system came through last week, providing a case in which a $400 heroin sale resulted in the confiscation of a $40,000 Land Rover. That is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on excessive fines. However, the Supreme Court had never explicitly affirmed that that part of the Eighth Amendment applies to actions taken by the states. Consider that problem resolved, and rightly so. The guy who dealt the drugs deserved to be punished, but seizing an vehicle with 100 times the value of the sale defines excessive.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion said it’s a disturbing trend among law enforcement agencies to seek the civil forfeiture of property that’s linked to a crime as a way to get extra revenue during tight budget times. Hopefully the ruling will reduce the incentive to do this.
Jack Ryan, Enterprise-Journal
