Louisiana editorial roundup

Recent editorials from Louisiana newspapers:

___

Aug. 13

The Courier of Houma on the Saints’ first preseason game:

The New Orleans Saints got off to a good start Thursday, beginning this year’s preseason with a win against the Jacksonville Jaguars.

The Black and Gold brought home a 24-20 victory in the first of the four run-ups to the regular season.

No, these games don’t count in the final standings. But they do have some significance.

They give the fans a chance to see the people who might have been injured at the end of last year for the first time healthy again. Fans also get their first sights of new arrivals - players who came here as free agents or as draft picks. And they get to see some of their favorites as well.

The Saints faithful did all of those things Thursday.

Although some of the big-name players didn’t play, most did. There was no Drew Brees or Cameron Jordan or first-round draft pick Marcus Davenport. But running backs Mark Ingram and Alvin Kamara, wide receiver Michael Thomas and a host of defensive stars did participate, and most looked ready to start the new season on a roll.

And there were some unexpected bright spots in the preseason opener. Running back Jonathan Williams and linebacker Jayrone Elliott both made big plays late in the game that endeared them to the fans.

Other players, too, made solid contributions to the team’s win.

Most importantly, the Saints got through the game without incurring any serious injuries. Remaining healthy, after all, is the first goal of the preseason.

Thursday’s game was a tantalizing introduction to the preseason, the time when football fans are focused on the approaching season. It gave them reasons for optimism and debate. It allowed them to cheer once again for their team while also watching as that team began to take shape, a process that will continue over the coming weeks.

The Saints have a great quarterback, an innovative and daring coach and a steadily improving offense that should be able to take its next step this year. There is reason for optimism among the fans, and there is nothing but eager anticipation for the approaching season.

This week, that anticipation will build once again as the Black and Gold play their second preseason game, a home matchup Friday against the Arizona Cardinals.

Geaux Saints!

Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, not of any individual.

Online: http://www.houmatoday.com

___

Aug. 15

NOLA.com/The Times-Picayune on a federal judge’s ruling that an Orleans Parish magistrate judge’s approach to setting bail was unconstitutional:

Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell basically acknowledged that the way he had set bail left poor people stranded in jail in New Orleans. After a lawsuit was filed in June 2017 alleging his bail practices were unconstitutional, Judge Cantrell said he changed his whole approach.

He revised the protocol he follows on setting bail and did away with the minimum dollar amount he had been using, he told U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon. Judge Cantrell says he considers more than a dozen factors to set bail, including the defendant’s income and ability to pay and the seriousness of the crime. Defendants who can’t afford bail also can have a hearing to argue their case for a lower amount or alternative to bail.

Judge Cantrell was hoping that would be enough. But Judge Fallon ruled last week that the magistrate had violated the constitutional rights of defendants and had a conflict of interest because Criminal District Court gets operating revenue from bonds posted by defendants.

Judge Fallon pointed out in his ruling that the magistrate’s “changes were made only after this litigation was commenced and Judge Cantrell’s affidavit is not binding on his future procedures.”

Those are important points. Bail is not meant to be used as a punishment. Detaining people before trial should be based on whether they are a risk to flee or a danger to the community, not simply because they are poor.

Defendants need to be able to trust that the changes Judge Cantrell made will stick and that he will be open to lower amounts or alternatives to bail.

Before the lawsuit, the magistrate “told public defenders that he would hold them in contempt when they have attempted to argue for lower bond amounts or RORs for their clients,” Judge Fallon’s ruling said.

In one example, a public defender asked for $1,000 bail based on his client’s job status and lack of risk factors. But Judge Cantrell set bail at $5,000 without asking about the woman’s ability to pay and told her lawyer that he never set bail below $2,500.

That amount seems arbitrary.

Judge Cantrell also reprimanded a public defender for asking for release on recognizance or $1,000 bond for his client, who was a college student with a low-paying job. Judge Cantrell again set $5,000 bail without inquiring into whether the person could pay.

He also initially agreed to release a woman on her own recognizance, but then set bail at $2,500 because she was homeless, according to the ruling.

“This evidence suggests that Judge Cantrell regularly sets bail without considering the defendant’s ability pay or qualification for alternative conditions of release and that these practices regularly result in pretrial detention based on inability to pay bail,” Judge Fallon said in the ruling.

The revenue from commercial surety bonds going to Criminal District Court is a significant issue as well. About $1 million flows into the Judicial Expense Fund every year for use by the court. That amounts to 20 to 25 percent of the expense fund and 10 percent of the court’s overall budget.

Although he didn’t create that situation, Judge Cantrell’s role in managing the fund and setting bail for defendants is an obvious conflict. The magistrate’s argument that the money could easily be replaced by asking for more state or city money didn’t work, either. Judge Fallon’s response was classic: “The Court approaches this claim with some incredulity.”

It would be better if Criminal District Court didn’t depend on revenue from bonds to balance its budget. The Legislature ought to find a different source for the money.

But unless that happens, the conflict will continue to exist. That is why it is so important for bail to be set fairly and for the court to take a defendant’s ability to pay into consideration.

No one should sit in jail merely because they are poor.

Online: https://www.nola.com

___

Aug. 12

The Advocate of Baton Rough on a federal appeals court decision concerning Louisiana’s public intimidation law:

An officer of the law should not have to put up with threats to his job when he arrests somebody. But two men from Livingston and Tangipahoa parishes won a lawsuit, on constitutional grounds, after they were accused of public intimidation.

A federal appeals court agreed with U.S. district judges who found the language of the current law against public intimidation too broad.

The appellate ruling stems from two lawsuits filed by men in Livingston and Tangipahoa parishes who were booked on public intimidation after threatening to get the officers arresting them fired.

“Because the meaning of ’threat’ is broad enough to sweep in threats to take lawful, peaceful actions - such as threats to sue a police officer or challenge an incumbent officeholder - (the law) is unconstitutionally overbroad,” according to an opinion published Friday by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Louisiana has a public intimidation law that makes it a felony to “use violence, force or threats upon (a person) with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment or duty.” The law applies to public employees, jurors, trial witnesses, election officials and school bus drivers. It carries a maximum penalty of five years at hard labor.

We know of no case in which such a harsh maximum penalty was imposed. In the case of the Livingston and Tangipahoa men, when the incidents appeared to result in no harm to others, local officials declined to prosecute. Even so, the accused men filed lawsuits over the public intimidation charges.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is intended to protect free speech, and in a society as diverse as the United States, it must be broadly construed. Our liberties are precious, and the courts acted rightly to signal to the state that the public intimidation statute must be rewritten or shelved.

The attorney general’s office is required to defend the state’s laws and had reasonably pursued an appeal to the 5th Circuit judges in the lawsuits. Still, we question whether further appeals would be a waste of money and time for the state over this kind of case.

…

Online: https://www.theadvocate.com