SEATTLE – Critics say it is nearly impossible to charge a police officer who has used deadly force in the State of Washington, and the group Washington for Good Policing wants to change that.

Its members are collecting signatures for Initiative 873, which would strike what they see as the most onerous line in a law protecting officers who use deadly force.

The initiative’s campaign manager, Lisa Hayes, says under the current statute, prosecutors must show that officers acted "with malice and without a good faith belief" in order to charge them.

"The problem with that is, malice is a state of mind,” she points out. “It's legally defined as ‘evil intent,’ and it is nearly impossible to prove what an officer was thinking or feeling – or not thinking or feeling – for a deadly-force crime."

Congressional and state representatives, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, the Seattle Police Department and other groups back the initiative.

However, some police officers say the initiative would open up the possibility of prosecuting police in hindsight for split-second decisions they make in heated and dangerous situations.

According to the Seattle Times, police killed 213 people between 2005 and 2014. Since the law went into effect in 1986, only one officer has been charged for using deadly force, and was acquitted based on the malice clause.

Hayes says the law is the most restrictive in the country when it comes to charging officers, and the only state law on deadly force that contains this language. But she adds this is not an anti-police initiative.

"We fundamentally believe that this may actually be making officers safer, because by removing this very nebulous malice clause, it goes a long way to repair public trust and improve community relations," she states.

The initiative needs 250,000 signatures by the end of the year to bring it before the Legislature in next year's session. If lawmakers reject the measure, it would appear on the next general election ballot for voters to decide.






get more stories like this via email

Ohio voters are facing significant challenges at the ballot box, with some groups expressing concerns over voter roll purges and gerrymandering affecting representation, particularly in Black and other communities of color.

The issues draw attention to Ohio's "use it or lose it" policy.

Molly Shack, executive director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said the policy affects marginalized groups more than others. She explained some voters, especially in underserved communities, may feel disappointed by a system when it does not meet their needs, resulting in fewer people voting and a higher chance of them being removed from the voter rolls.

"Ohio has purged literally millions of voters over the last decade and most recently, close to 160,000," Shack pointed out. "Those are policies that allow voters to be removed from the rolls not because they are ineligible citizens who can't constitutionally cast a ballot but because they haven't voted in a while."

Critics like Shack argued Ohio's current electoral practices contribute to voter suppression, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals, working-class citizens, voters of color and young voters, especially in districts already burdened by participation barriers.

Advocates also expressed concern about Ohio's persistent gerrymandering issues.

Bria Bennett, communications director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, asserted such practices dilute Black voter influence by packing and splitting urban areas, a tactic known as "cracking and packing."

"When we're thinking about gerrymandering, many times, that dilutes the Black vote," Bennett observed. "So think of your urban centers, you're packing all your votes into one area so that, yes, that voting block is together. However, it is diluting it everywhere else."

As Ohio voters prepare to decide on Issue One, supporters see the measure as a crucial step toward a fairer, more representative democracy.

Advocates for a voter bill of rights, currently stalled in the Supreme Court, continue to raise awareness about the barriers faced by some communities, emphasizing the need for comprehensive voting reforms to ensure access across the state.


get more stories like this via email

Through this Saturday, Minnesota is recognizing Workplace Rights Week.

From COVID precautions to emerging technology, labor voices said there is key information some workers might not be aware of. Over the past year, Minnesota has phased in new laws such as earned sick-time requirements, which mandate one hour of fully paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Jeff Ambroz, director of development and communications for the Minnesota Training Partnership, said as COVID activity continues to circulate and with the cold and flu season almost here, workers should know the requirement is expansive.

"This isn't only sick time for yourself," Ambroz pointed out. "It's time that you can use to care for a sick family member, to get help if you are a victim of domestic abuse or stalking."

Workers are also encouraged to see if they can use their earned time for things such as vaccination appointments. Ambroz noted workplace environments are constantly changing with new equipment and technology. He recommended staff should maintain conversations among each other, elected officials and, if applicable, union representatives in the event such changes harm a workplace setting.

Over the summer, Minnesota also implemented a change to expand penalties and legal options in cases where a company misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor.

John Swanson, political coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 343, said these have long been pervasive issues, especially in the construction trades.

"(These are) some things that should be common sense," Swanson contended. "But we have to have laws now to protect people from being taken advantage of."

Labor leaders said a misclassified worker can miss out on things such as health coverage and overtime pay. Other misclassification provisions specifically dealing with the construction sector go into effect next March.


get more stories like this via email

A legal expert has issued a warning that artificial intelligence tools could lead to discriminatory practices in hiring and firing.

Algorithms and AI are increasingly used by businesses through Automated Employment Decision Tools.

But Hardeep Rekhi, partner at the Seattle law firm Rekhi & Wolk, said these tools can be programmed with data that can train them to be inherently biased.

He noted that Amazon, for example, developed one of these tools to review resumes - but had to abandon it in 2018 because it was eliminating female candidates.

"This tool is only as good as the data that it's being trained on," said Rekhi, "and if that data is tainted by individuals that have bias, I worry that the tool itself will be mis-trained."

Rekhi said it's also hard to know how AI is using data to make its decisions - and claimed these tools are essentially "black boxes" that could be discriminating against certain classes of people, without the user knowing.

Rekhi said there are ways to protect people against this. During this year's legislative session in Olympia, House Bill 1951 was introduced to prohibit "algorithmic discrimination" by automated tools.

The bill didn't pass, but Rekhi said it was on the right path.

"You have to put the onus on developers of the tool and users of the tool," said Rekhi, "to make sure that whatever tool they're using isn't discriminating, and that's what the Legislature has proposed."

Rekhi said automated tools for business decisions like hiring and firing threaten the many gains made in employment practices in recent decades.

"We've worked so hard, and we've made significant progress in the field of trying to eliminate discrimination in the workplace," said Rekhi, "and I don't want this to, kind of, undo that or to hide that."




get more stories like this via email