It’s a whole new race.

It was not that long ago that republicans were arguing about pardons and democrats were debating statements made in kindergarten.  And yes polls still suggest that republicans are seen as more serious about security than republicans

Share

The Iowa Republican caucuses are a toss up. Mike Huckabee’s arrived. Mitt Romney’s not gone. BUT today Romney, who may well win, laid claim to victory in second. It’s hardly an original strategy, in the EXPECTATIONS GAME that is “the first in the nation.”

Share

Organization is the name of the game in the early states, particularly Iowa’s caucuses.

Because the caucuses come right after Christmas and New Years candidates have begun their final grassroots organizational push early. Obama’s been doing Get Out The Vote (GOTV) rallies for a month! Traditionally such rallies don’t start until the final week. This time that final week is chock full of holidays so the candidates are frontloading their grassroots organizing.

For its’ January 3rd first in the nation caucus the Hawkeye state expects 125 thousand democrats and 60-80 thousand republicans to turnout.

That means that a democrat polling at 25% should have about 41 thousand committed supporters.

A republican could have between 15-20 thousand committed caucus supporters at 25% in the polls.

That is a pittance in terms of actual voters, less than a race for councilman or alderman in most large American Cities. The caucus is designed to be hard. It keeps outsiders away and guarantees that the electorate is highly motivated. They have to stand up in front of neighbors and disclose their political beliefs and it takes several hours on a cold winter weeknight!

Caucus voters need intense care and feeding. Campaigns rate supporters on a scale of 1-5 to gauge how best to work em. And they often get calls and visits and emails a dozen times per campaign.

Here is a look at past turnout and candidate percentages.

2004:
IOWA CAUCUS

DEMS 123,000 caucus voters
Kerry 38 Edwards 32% Dean 18%
GOP N/A
Bush Unopposed

NH PRIMARY

DEMS 219,787
Kerry 38 dean 26 Clark 12
GOP N/A 69,414.
Bush unopposed

SC PRIMARY

DEMS 293,843
Edwards45 Kerry30 Sharpton1O
GOP N/A Bush unopposed

2000:
Ia CAUCUS

Dems 75,000 caucus voters
Gore 63%; Bradley 35%
GOP shy of 90,000 caucus voters
Bush 41%,Forbes 30%

NH PRIMARY

GOP 238,206 (includes indies)
McCain. 49 Bush 30
Dems 154,000 (includes indies)
Gore 50 Bradley 46

SC PRIMARY

GOP 573,101
Bush 53 McCain 41
Dems primary too late to matter

1996:
IA CAUCUS

DEMS 75K
Clinton uncontested
GOP fewer than 100,000
Dole 26%, Buchanan 23%

NH PRIMARY

DEMS 91,027
Clinton uncontested
GOP 208,740
Buchanan 27 Dole 26 Lamar 22

SC PRIMARY

DEMS HELD CAUCUS
Clinton uncontested N/A
GOP 276,000
Dole 45 Buchanan 29

Share

A new Iowa survey from Strategic Vision, a Republican polling outfit, seems to confirm the recent pro-Obama trend in the state. The Illinois Senator leads the Democratic pack with 32%, followed by chief rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards at 25%. But as with all recent polls here, the numbers are within the margin of error.

Should Hillary be worried? The campaign can’t be happy with the trend lines in the horse race — especially since momentum always plays such a key role in Iowa. They also can’t be happy with the fact that she’s dropping among women, and that voters seem to care less about experience than change. But staffers constantly point out that polls don’t matter here. While that’s partially spin, since aides won’t hesitate to point out a poll that looks good for their candidate, there’s a lot of truth to the assertion.

I asked Opinion Dynamics CEO John Gorman, who runs the Fox News / Opinion Dynamics polls, why it’s so difficult to get a read on the Hawkeye state. “Polling in Iowa is very difficult and of very uncertain quality,” he wrote back. “This results from the following factors:

“1) Turnout is generally pretty low; thus extraneous factors can screw things. This is one of those few places where the ’snow on one town, no snow on another’ can actually matter.” (my note: in 2000, the last caucus that was contested in both parties, just 145,000 out of a voting-eligible population of 2.1 million showed up to caucus. That’s 6.6%. By comparison, 44.4% of eligible New Hampshire residents voted in the primary that year).

“2) Low turnout also means organization can matter a lot; in a normal election 5% is really “a lot”; in Iowa 20% is possible.” (my note: it also means the right kind of voter can matter a lot; previous caucus goers are much more likely to actually show up than first timers. This helps John Edwards, who has more of the established, older support in the state, while it’s challenged Obama and Clinton to figure out how to get younger Iowans to the caucuses)

“3) Iowans have come to believe in their own superior wisdom and influence on events; a chance to help a worthy 2nd tier candidate and keep them in the race can produce shifts.

“4) The public nature of the voting discourages oddball voting. People are less likely to vote for a Kucinich in front of their friends and neighbors (employers, customers).

“5) The [15%] threshold on the Dem side means that in the course of just the hour of voting the stronger candidates go up and the weaker ones go down. This means a pre-election poll is actually going to overestimate the bottom tier candidates.” (my note: And since candidates who don’t have the support of 15% of the voters at a caucus site are out of the running there, the second choice of all those Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and Richardson voters really does matter).

Share

Des Moines-

Moderator Michelle Norris asked John Edwards that as a father of 2 small children if he would
be buying toys made in China over Christmas.

“No ma’mm”,Edwards responded. Norris said it must be hard with over 70 percent of toys being made in China.

Chris Dodd, also a father, piped in during the exchange, ” I’m only buying toys made in Iowa.”

Share

Senator Clinton devoted much of a speech here in Ankeny, IA, to blasting her chief rival Barack Obama for failing to cover every American under his health care plan. In her harshest criticism yet, Clinton said Obama was betraying Democratic principles by leaving 15 million uncovered, adding “just because it’s controversial or ambitious, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. The time is now.”

“If we don’t move toward universal health care coverage now, if we don’t have an election about it where I stand against whoever the Republicans nominate and let them answer the questions about why they won’t take care of covering every single American, why they want to still be in bed with the health insurance companies, that is an election we will win,” she said. “

But we’ve got to put up a candidate that’s willing to stand for it and fight for it

.”

Responding to Hillary’s attacks, Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement saying, “Another day, another desperate attack.”

“Demonizing anyone who doesn’t share her exact plans on health care is exactly why Hillary Clinton flunked the opportunity she had to pass universal health care in 1993. The truth is, Barack Obama’s universal health care plan makes coverage affordable for every single American, he just doesn’t agree with Hillary’s plan to start by forcing everyone to buy insurance they can’t afford,” he said.

What follows is a “greatest hits” compilation from the event, including her comparison of the fight for universal health care to FDR and LBJ’s battles for Social Security and Medicare — in which she plays the role of the strong, principled president, and Obama is (by implication) not up to the same level. The entire Obama-related portion of her speech is after the jump.

“More than anybody else in this race, I have a plan to reduce the cost of health care by $120 billion a year. And I think its important that we understand the differences among us who have plans.

You know, among the Democrats, all of us except Senator Obama have universal health care, they have put forth a plan. Senator (sic) Richardson, Senator Edwards, Senator Dodd. We’ve put forth universal health care plans, because we know if we don’t cover everybody, we’re going to leave millions and millions of people out. Its a substantive and important difference. Because if you don’t start with the goal of covering every American, you will never get there.

Here’s how my plan works: if you already have private insurance and you’re happy with it, nothing changes. You keep that insurance. But if you don’t have health insurance or you don’t like he insurance you have, you can choose from a wide variety of options that are available to members of congress.

All Americans will have a responsibility to get and keep health insurance. I believe if we make this the law of the land, Americans will follow it and will purchase health insurance far more than if we don’t have that requirement.

We’ll provide tax credits to ensure that people can afford it, and we’ll give tax credits to small businesses so that they can cover more of their employees. If you want to cover everybody you have to make health care a shared responsibility.

I know you need to have the willingness to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies and demand universal coverage.

And that’s why I don’t understand why we have this difference on the Democratic side, because if anything, democrats should stand for universal health care. That distinguishes us from the Republicans. The Republicans don’t believe in it. Democrats do. And we’ll fight for it.

It will be a president with the experience and strength to make that happen, otherwise we’ll be right back here in another ten or twelve or fourteen years, and we’ll still have tens of millions of people uninsured and in fact our problems will be even worse and we will have lost more jobs because employers won’t be willing to provide insurance. They’ll move jobs off shore because they don’t want to have those benefits. And we will not be either competitive or living up to our ideals.

It is impossible to get to universal health care if you don’t have a mandate. That is a key difference between my plan and Senator Obama’s plan.

Now when Senator Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he helped to create a health care task force that looked into how best to cover everybody in Illinois with health insurance.

 They released their report earlier this year – and they made it very clear, if you want to cover everyone you need to require people to get health insurance. Otherwise you will fail to cover 60-90% of the uninsured.

Now, there are a number of ways of doing this. one sensible step would be to use what’s called default enrollment. If you don’t make a choice, well we set up a system where people are automatically enrolled when they come into contact with the health care system or with schools or colleges. We could also work with employers so they automatically enroll people. The Congress has ideas about this, it will work to make sure that these mandates are enforceable.

But what’s strange is that Senator Obama’s plan actually does have a mandate, but only for children. No requirement for adults. Now I’ve worked on this issue a very long time.

 And if you believe you can enforce a mandate on children, that means you enforce the mandate on the parents of the children to enroll the children?

Why would you leave out the parents of the children? 

Because what happens when you leave out the parents is that they’re less likely to get health care for their own children. See, this is all connected.

And I’m proud that Senator Edwards agrees with me, Senator Dodd agrees with me, Governor Richardson agrees with me. Congressman Kucinich has a different approach, but he gets everyone covered to have universal health care.

If we don’t have universal health care, then we will be betraying the Democratic party’s principles. And it’s important that those who will caucus on January 3rd understand this difference. Senator Obama’s plan does not and cannot cover all Americans.

He’s called his plan universal, then he called it virtually universal, but it is not either. When it comes to truth in labeling, it simply flunks the test.

He’s been saying there’s no difference between our plans, but his plan would Leave at least 15 million Americans uninsured, including more than 100,000 people right here in Iowa.

So why don’t we just say everybody against the wall, you don’t get insurance. We’re very sorry, but we’re just not going to have a plan that covers you. Who’s going to choose who doesn’t get covered? Who’s going to leave out 15 million people, or 100,000 people in Iowa? That’s more than half the population of Des Moines. That’s a huge difference for those who get left out, like the daughter of the woman I met from Greenville.

And its a huge difference to me, to leave 15 million people virtually invisible, because that is what we would do.

 Well when I’m president, there will be no invisible Americans, and there will be no Americans without health care. That is one of my highest priorities.

And I know its going to be a tough fight. But I have been fighting the republicans and the special interests for 15 years.

I have to admit I get amused when any of my opponents try to claim they’ve fought more fights than I’ve fought. Well I don’t remember them being with me in 1993 and 1994, to tell you the truth.

So I don’t mind standing up and fighting. That’s what I want to do for all of you.

And I know that you are not going to get the health insurance companies to say, oh ok, we’re going to cover everybody, and therefore its going to be hard for us to make money because we’ll to have to do it the old fashioned way.

 Instead of eliminating people from coverage and refusing to pay doctors bills and hospital bills, we’re just going to eliminate you in the first instance, or deny coverage for you and refuse to pay your bills. I know they’re not going to like my plan. That’s not the point.

Just because it’s controversial or ambitious, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. The time is now. If we don’t move toward universal health care coverage now, if we don’t have an election about it where I stand against whoever the Republicans nominate and let them answer the questions about why they won’t take care of covering every single American, why they want to still be in bed with the health insurance companies, that is an election we will win. 

But we’ve got to put up a candidate that’s willing to stand for it and fight for it

.

Imagine if President Roosevelt had said, ‘well, lets have Social Security, but lets start by leaving out millions of our seniors.’ Or suppose President Johnson, fighting the fights over Medicare

, said, ‘you know, lets just cover some of our seniors with Medicare. Eventually the others will catch up.’ That is not the way it works.

They knew what it took to make big, important changes in our country. They also knew that if you aim too low, if you give up before the fight has started, then you have no chance of making it to the finish line. And I intend to not only make it to the finish line, but to be there with all of you. Because we’re going to do this together.

Those that don’t have insurance, they don’t just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on everyone else. When you leave 15 million Americans uninsured, the result is a hidden tax on every other American. What do I mean by that? Well when someone is finally forced to go to the emergency room because they can’t afford a doctor’s appointment, we all pay the bill. When they can’t pay their medical bills, insurance companies just raise the rates on everybody else.

And when you leave 15 million uninsured, insurance companies will just continue to cherry pick the healthiest people and discriminate against the sickest. Those that need the coverage the most.

We’re going to eliminate health care discrimination. Were going to require insurance companies to insure everyone, including preexisting conditions. You will not any longer be denied insurance, you will be entitled to insurance. And as long as you pay your share of the costs, no one can take it away from you

And that will also be a cardinal principle when it comes to how we’re going to make it absolutely clear to people that having insurance is a shared responsibility. Everybody’s got to pitch in. No more hidden taxes. No more insurance company cherry picking.

I know we can do this, and even the Republicans, at least some of them, do. That’s why Governor Schwarzenegger has a mandate

 in his proposal. No one who looks seriously about how we get to universal health care can come to any other conclusion

.

So this is a fight worth taking on. I’ve never shied away from tough challenges., and neither has America. You know, we’re the nation that split the atom, that sent a man to the moon, that mapped the human genome. We’ve got the best doctors and nurses and health care professionals in the world. We’ve got the most exciting research, the most promising treatment and cures. And it’s long past time

 that all of our people benefited from that.”

Share

…Giuliani, as we noted, was kind of soft on Romney on his crime record…but his campaign is not in their latest email….

the email:

MITT ROMNEY IS SOFT ON CRIME

VIOLENT CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND ROBBERY WENT UP UNDER ROMNEY

Crime Increased During Romney’s Tenure In Office. “New FBI statistics show that murders and other violent crimes rose in Massachusetts under former Gov. Mitt Romney, while plummeting in many parts of the country, a fact that could haunt the ex-governor on the presidential trail.” (Dave Wedge, “Crime Up During Romney Tenure,” Boston Herald, 9/26/07)

* “The Numbers Paint A Murky Picture Of Romney’s Record On Crime, Which May Explain Why He Rarely Broaches The Subject On The Stump, More Often Opting To Speak About Terrorism, Immigration, Health Care, Taxes, Gay Marriage, Gun Ownership And Abortion.” (Dave Wedge, “Crime Up During Romney Tenure,” Boston Herald, 9/26/07)

“The Newly Released Figures Show That Murders Were Up 7.5 Percent In The Bay State And 25 Percent In Boston From 2002 To 2006 While Romney Was Governor.” (Dave Wedge, “Crime Up During Romney Tenure,” Boston Herald, 9/26/07)
“From 2005 To 2006 – Most Of Which Romney Spent Out-Of-State Campaigning – Murders Were Up 4.5 Percent In Massachusetts, Outpacing The National Increase Of 1.8 Percent.” (Dave Wedge, “Crime Up During Romney Tenure,” Boston Herald, 9/26/07)

Robberies Went Up Over 12% During Romney’s Term. (FBI Uniform Crime Report, www.fbi.gov, Accessed 11/14/07)

ROMNEY OPPOSED INCREASED FUNDING TO CLASSIFY AND REGISTER SEX OFFENDERS

As Governor, Romney Vetoed Attempts To Charge Convicted Sex Offenders A $75 Fee To Register With The State. (Alexander Bolton, “Romney’s Tax Record Gets A Closer Look,” The Hill, 3/27/07)

* Romney Opposed Fee Increase For Sex Offenders To Register Over Fear That Such An Increase Would Create A Disincentive To Register. “After the press conference, state Rep. James B. Leary, D-Worcester, noted that among several vetoes of anti-crime measures earlier this year, Mr. Romney rejected a measure that would have assessed sex offenders a $75 fee to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board. [Healey spokesman] Mr. Little said [Governor Romney] made the veto because he felt the fee would be a disincentive to sex offenders registering with their local communities. (Shaun Sutner, “Murray Sends Rivals Tough-On-Crime Message,” Telegram & Gazette, 10/24/06)

Romney Also Vetoed A $750,000 Budgeted Plan To “Cut Down On The Current Backlog Of Sex Offenders Yet To Be Classified By The State.” (Steve LeBlanc, “Legislature Restores State Aid To Local Communities, Sex Offender Fee,” The Associated Press, 7/8/03)

Romney Proposed Funding Cuts Of Over 6% To The State’s Sex Offender Registry Board During His Term. (Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Fiscal Affairs Division Website, “Governor’s Annual Budget Recommendations FY 2003-FY 2007,” Accessed 9/11/07)

ROMNEY FAILED TO CHANGE TRIAL JUDGE TENURE TO TEN YEARS

During His 2002 Campaign, Romney Proposed “Stripping Trial Court Judgers Of Their Lifetime Tenures, Requiring Them To Reapply Every 10 Years.” “Romney proposed stripping Trial Court judges of their lifetime tenures, requiring them to reapply every 10 years – but with the expectation that most would be ‘almost automatically’ reappointed. ‘Right now, it is virtually impossible to remove liberal judges who shock our collective sense of outrage with inexcusably lenient sentences,’ Romney said. He charged that lawmakers have packed the judiciary with patronage by ‘micromanaging’ hiring and firing.” (Elisabeth J. Beardsley and David R. Guarino, “Dems Come Out Swinging At Romney’s Anti-Crime Plan,” Boston Herald, 8/21/02)

* In 2002 There Was A Mandatory Retirement Age Of 70 Years Old For All Judges In Massachusetts. (“New Chief Justice For Housing Court,” The Boston Globe, 5/22/02)

In 2007, Massachusetts Judges Could Still Serve “As Long As They Choose.” “That deliberate pace at which governors have moved in placing judges on the bench for as long as they choose to serve, until they reach the mandatory retirement of age 70, is seen by many as a function of the importance attached to the third branch of government and the long tenure granted its members.” (Barbara Rabinovitz, “Massachusetts Judge Vacancies Languish – To Dismay Of Courts’ Chiefs,” Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 9/17/07)

ROMNEY FAILED TO ENACT MANDATORY POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR CONVICTED FELONS

During His 2002 Campaign, Romney Called For Requiring “Mandatory Post-Release Supervision For Those Who Are Incarcerated.” (Mitt Romney For Governor, “Courts, Crime & Community,” http://www.romneyfacts.com/assets/cjtk-policy/2002%20Romney%20PowerPoints/courtscrime.ppt, 2002, Accessed 11/6/07)

Romney Filed Legislation In 2005 That Would “Require Post-Prison Supervision For All Convicted Felons In Massachusetts.” “In a bid to reduce the number of released convicts who wind up back in jail, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey proposed a bill yesterday that would require post-prison supervision for all convicted felons in Massachusetts. Under the bill, every released inmate in the state would be assigned to a parole or probation officer and would receive job training, access to drug treatment programs, housing assistance, and other services designed to help their transition back into society.” (Janette Neuwahl and Joanna Weiss, “Healey Touts Post-Prison Aid Bill,” The Boston Globe, 2/15/05)

One Year Later, In 2006, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey Expressed “Exasperation” Over A Lack Of Legislative Action On A Bill “Calling For Mandatory Post-Release Supervision.” “In addition, [Lt. Gov. Healey] expressed exasperation over a lack of action on bills calling for mandatory post-release supervision, economic stimulus proposals, a rollback in the state income tax rate and sex offender registration.” (Glen Johnson, “Healey Blasts Legislature For ‘Wrong Priorities,’” The Associated Press, 2/23/06)

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) In 2007 Is Calling For Mandatory Post-Release Supervision For Convicted Felons. “During the hearing, Patrick’s Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke read a statement from the governor. In the statement, Patrick chided lawmakers for holding what he called an ‘annual spectacle’ of a death penalty hearing when there were more pressing public safety concerns. ‘Meanwhile strategies that work reducing the availability of unlawful firearms, developing mandatory post-release supervision, and information-sharing among responsible agencies on at-risk juvenile go ignored,’ Patrick wrote. ‘My administration filed bills in April to advance each of these strategies. They have not yet been fully debated by either legislative body.’” (Steve LeBlanc, “Relations Between Patrick, Lawmakers Starting To Fray,” The Associated Press, 10/27/07)

ROMNEY FAILED TO GIVE PROSECUTORS THE RIGHT TO

APPEAL LENIENT SENTENCES

Romney In 2002 “Vowed to Level The Playing Field For Prosecutors By Giving Them The Right To Appeal Lenient Sentences Imposed On Criminals.” (Mitt Romney For Governor Website, http://web.archive.org/web/20021015121546/www.romney2002.com/news/releases/pr082002.asp, 11/5/02, Accessed 11/7/07)

ROMNEY FAILED TO ELIMINATE THE DNA TESTING BACKLOG

In 2002, Romney’s Pledged To “Bring Crime Investigation Into 21st Century,” Partly By Eliminating Backlog Of DNA Testing. (Mitt Romney For Governor Website, Accessed Via Internet Archive’s Watback Machine, http://web.archive.org/web/20021012122547/www.romney2002.com/news/releases/courtscrime.ppt, Accessed 11/26/07)

In 2005, DNA Backlog Had Doubled Because Of “Burdensome” Requirement That Convicted Felons Be Tested Twice Before Submitting To FBI. “The backlog for testing DNA samples at the State Police Crime Laboratory has doubled in the last few months because of what state officials are calling a burdensome new requirement that the DNA from convicted felons in Massachusetts be tested twice before it is submitted to the FBI’s national data base. The Sudbury lab has often been the subject of criticism because of chronic understaffing and long delays in processing DNA samples, which are often crucial to criminal investigations and trials. The issue resurfaced last week, after authorities said it took more than eight months to process DNA that helped police arrest a Cape Cod trash hauler charged with the 2002 slaying of Truro writer Christa Worthington.” (Ralph Ranalli, “DNA Test Backlog Worsens In Mass.” The Boston Globe, 4/23/05)

In 2005, Romney Proposed Creating An “Interim Crime Lab Facility” And Hiring New DNA Chemists, Which Crime Lab Head Hoped Would Reduced Backlog To 90 Days. “Governor Mitt Romney has proposed spending $5.4 million for an interim crime lab facility in the next fiscal year that would allow the State Police lab to expand. About $2.6 million would be used to lease 100,000 square feet of space in Sudbury to house an expanded DNA analysis operation, $1.4 million to hire additional chemists and other staff, and $1.4 million for related expenses, including equipment and supplies. The expanded staff would be in addition to the 12 DNA chemists who are currently being trained and will double the lab’s staff when they are ready for work later this year. It takes approximately a year to train and certify a DNA chemist, officials said. Once the promised funds, additional staff, and expanded facilities are available, [Massachusetts Crime Lab Head Major Mark] Delaney said, the lab hopes to have the backlog cut down to about 90 days.” (Ralph Ranalli, “DNA Test Backlog Worsens In Mass.” The Boston Globe, 4/23/05)

National Forensic Science Groups Recommend A 30-Day Turnaround. “While an improvement, even that would be short of national standards, [Public Safety Undersecretary For Forensic Services Jane] Tewksbury said. To achieve the 30-day turnaround recommended by national forensic science groups, she said, a state the size of Massachusetts would need 80 DNA chemists working in a 200,000-square-foot facility, or one roughly 10 times the size of the Sudbury lab.” (Ralph Ranalli, “DNA Test Backlog Worsens In Mass.” The Boston Globe, 4/23/05)

In August 2005, The State Crime Lab Had A 1,000 Case Backlog, And A Typical DNA Analysis Averaged 9 Months. “Sudbury Officials yesterday hailed the opening of an addition to the State Police crime lab as a key step toward eliminating the 1,000-case backlog of criminal investigations waiting for DNA tests … Even with the new expansion and a 100,000-square-foot facility being planned for early 2007 the backlog of DNA cases probably will not be cleared for years, Major Mark Delaney, commander of State Police forensic services, said in an interview … Though urgent cases can be processed in as little as a week, a typical analysis now averages nine months, Delaney said. Some can take as long as 18 months.” (Adam Jadhav, “Officials Hail New Crime Lab,” The Boston Globe, 8/25/05)

By The End Of Romney’s Term, There Was A Backlog Of 2,900 Criminal Cases Awaiting DNA Testing Which Took An Average Of 359 Days. “The investigation, sought by Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s administration when it took over in January, stated more than 4,000 rape evidence kits submitted between 1989 and 1999, and thousands since, were not tested for DNA. In addition, a report disclosed yesterday that evidence in some 2,900 criminal cases are awaiting DNA testing and that untested evidence from 10,000 other criminal cases is being preserved in cold storage. State Secretary of Public Safety Kevin M. Burke said it is ‘a remote possibility’ that the decade-old backlog of DNA testing and evidence in thousands of major criminal cases over many years may have left some rapists and killers walking free, and that some convicted individuals who could be cleared of their crimes may remain imprisoned … Fingerprint analysis takes 90 days, and DNA testing takes 359 days on average. The report said urgent requests for analysis can be completed in five days, but in 99 percent of the requested testing, the crime lab fails to meet a stated goal of a 60-day turnaround.” (John J. Monahan, “Crime Lab Didn’t Test 16,000 Cases,” Telegram & Gazette, 7/17/07)

2007 Investigation Into State Police Crime Lab Showed Evidence In 16,000 Cases Had Not Undergone DNA Testing, With Some Cases Dating Back To 1985. “A new investigation has revealed that problems at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory that handles scientific evidence testing for police departments across the state are far worse than previously believed and that evidence in more than 16,000 cases, including rapes and murders dating back to 1985, have not undergone DNA testing. The investigation, sought by Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s administration when it took over in January, stated more than 4,000 rape evidence kits submitted between 1989 and 1999, and thousands since, were not tested for DNA. In addition, a report disclosed yesterday that evidence in some 2,900 criminal cases are awaiting DNA testing and that untested evidence from 10,000 other criminal cases is being preserved in cold storage.” (John J. Monahan, “Crime Lab Didn’t Test 16,000 Cases,” Telegram & Gazette, 7/17/07)

* Investigation Report Said Problems With Crime Lab Were Highlighted In Multiple Audits Performed During Romney’s Tenure, Which Were “Ignored.” “The [report of 2007 investigation], which was released at a press conference at state police headquarters yesterday is replete with findings about persistent mismanagement and understaffing as well as repeated failure of state police and state public safety officials to address problems at the lab identified in audit reports in 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Recommendations to correct problems, the report stated, were made repeatedly ‘but ignored’ and also were ‘widely known in the forensic community around the country.’ They included a lack of independent reviews, ‘serious questions concerning the qualifications of personnel and the administration of the Combined DNA Index System, incomplete and improper documentation, and profile mistakes’ involving DNA tests and identifications. ‘Had many of these issues been addressed when first identified, the State Police Crime Laboratory would likely not have faced the serious CODIS crisis,’ the report stated, which led to a crisis in public confidence in a critical law enforcement function.” (John J. Monahan, “Crime Lab Didn’t Test 16,000 Cases,” Telegram & Gazette, 7/17/07)

Massachusetts Legislature Increased Funding For Crime Lab In Both Fiscal 2005 And Fiscal 2007. “The Legislature increased funding of the lab from $6.2 million in fiscal 2005 to $16.2 million in fiscal 2007, in part to address a mammoth backlog in DNA analyses that reached 1,000 cases in 2005. In addition, lawmakers created the post of undersecretary for forensic sciences in the Executive Office of Public Safety to oversee improvements at the lab and the state medical examiner’s office.” (Jonathan Saltzman, “FBI Begins Review Of Crime Lab,” The Boston Globe, 1/20/07)

In 2006, Romney Vetoed Increased Spending For State Police Crime Lab. “Included in Romney’s cuts are several items that Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey – who ran for governor on public safety issues – would likely have objected to prior to Election Day: funding for the state police crime lab, the Sex Offender Registry Board and anti-gang initiatives.” (Rebecca Fater, “Romney Slashes State’s Spending,” The Berkshire Eagle, 11/11/06)

ROMNEY FAILED TO IMPLEMENT BILL REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR DANGEROUS CRIMINALS TO BE FILED WITH FBI

In November 2006, Romney Introduced Legislation To Require Police Departments To Enter All Warrants For Felonies Or Serious Misdemeanors Into FBI National Database. “Governor Mitt Romney today filed legislation that requires local police departments to enter all warrants for felony crimes and serious misdemeanors into the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. … Romney’s bill would require law enforcement agencies to enter any felony warrant involving a serious crime of violence or narcotics trafficking into the NCIC database within 24 hours of the issuance of the warrant. In addition, the bill requires other types of felony and serious misdemeanor warrants to be entered within 72 hours of the issuance of the warrant. Currently, police chiefs have discretion on which warrants to enter and when to enter them.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Files Bill Requiring Warrant Entry For Serious Crimes,” Press Release, 11/6/06)

Union Leader Editorial Board Said Romney’s Bill Had “Little Chance Of Passing” “Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney has introduced a bill to require police to enter serious violent criminals and drug traffickers into the database within 24 hours and others within 72 hours, but it is given little chance of passing.” (Editorial, “Laxachusetts Letting Criminals Go – To NH,” The Union Leader, 11/14/06)

* Union Leader Also Noted That 95 Percent Of Wanted Criminals In Massachusetts Could Not Be Identified As Such In New Hampshire. “Massachusetts enters only about 5 percent of its outstanding warrants into the database, which means that 95 percent of that state’s wanted criminals are not identified as such to New Hampshire police. There are 103,379 active felony warrants in Massachusetts, but 93,502 – more than the population of Nashua – have not been entered into the NCIC database.” (Editorial, “Laxachusetts Letting Criminals Go – To NH,” The Union Leader, 11/14/06)

National Review’s Deroy Murdock Noted That Romney’s Bill Did Not Pass. “Romney proposed a bill to require state and local cops to report such warrants to the FBI, but failed to get it through his state legislature.” (Deroy Murdock, Op-Ed, “Laxachusetts,” National Review, 11/26/07)

Share