Today is election day in San Francisco for Mayor. It's liberal Democrat establishment candidate Gavin Newsom vs. progressive Green party candidate (and former Democrat and public defender) Matt Gonzales. Gavin is heavily favored, having the support of outgoing mayor Willie Brown, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the San Francisco Chronicle. Clinton was in SF yesterday, stumping for Gavin.

We think Matt Gonzales will make a respectable showing. The San Franisco Chronicle recently ran its Editorial Board interview with Gonzales.

While both candidates are progressive, Gonzales is more so. The AP puts it this way:

The candidates have such similar positions that both would be considered liberals in almost any city outside California. But in this race, which has hinged as much on looks and lifestyles as their approaches to homelessness and economic development, Newsom has been cast as a Republican in liberal's clothing, Gonzalez the fringe spoiler.

Gonzales put it this way:

"It will be a test of who turns out to vote," said Gonzalez, whose campaign has attracted a mix of college students, unemployed dot-commers, artists and activists old enough to remember the 1960s.

"You have to give us some props for putting this thing together and bringing it to this place," Gonzalez told reporters Monday. "We've assaulted the traditional ideas of politics."

Check out John Nichols' OnLine Beat in The Nation discussing the race. And here's a list of bloggers for Matt.

If you're looking for enlightenment about the death penalty from this year's crop of Democratic presidential contenders, you're unlikely to find it. Only Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely Braun oppose it. This article in the Boston Globe traces the other six candidates' evolving positions on capital punishment--three, Dean, Lieberman and Edwards, have moved from opposing it to supporting it--at least in limited situations.

The article traces the shift first to 1988 and the disasterous Michael Dukakis bid for President:

In 1988, Dukakis's stock crashed after he was asked whether he would favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered. He replied with detachment: "I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state." He went on to lose 40 states to George H. W. Bush.

The 1992 emergence of Bill Clinton, who supported the death penalty, was another factor. Here are the shifts among the major candidates:

It's official. Al Gore has endorsed Howard Dean for President:

Gore said Dean "really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grass-roots level all over the country." He said the former Vermont governor also was the only Democratic candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war.

"Our country has been weakened in its ability to fight the war against terror because of the catastrophic mistake the Bush administration made in taking us into war in Iraq," Gore said.

Gore is flying with Dean to Iowa today to campaign there. The AP describes the effect of Dean's endorsement this way:

The approval of Bill Clinton's No. 2 bolsters Dean's case that he can carry the party's mantle in November and represents more than an Internet-driven outsider relying on the support of largely white, upscale voters.

Joe Lieberman appeared on the Today Show this morning and said Gore's move "caught him completely off guard." And he got in one dig at Gore:

Asked on "Today" whether he felt betrayed by the former vice president, Lieberman said, "I'm not going to talk about Al Gore's sense of loyalty this morning."

Update: Here's the story on the secret plotting behind the endorsement.

Update: A new cnn/gallup poll shows Dean ahead in the Democratic race for the first time.

Twenty-five percent of registered voters who identify with or lean to the Democratic Party say they are supporting Dean for the nomination. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark ranks second with 17 percent. Three weeks ago, Dean and Clark were tied at 17 percent." [link via Political Wire.]

Update: Lieberman fights back.

The death of John Lennon on Dec. 8, 1980 outside his New York Apartment building around 10:00 p.m has always held a special meaning for the TalkLeft family.

I was 3 1/2 weeks overdue with my first child. On Dec. 8, I went to the hosptial in the afternoon to be induced. It didn't work, they sent me home. At bedtime, my then-husband and I were in bed-- he was watching Monday Night Football, I was reading a book. All of a sudden, Howard Cosell's huge voice boomed out: "An unspeakable tragedy this evening in New York City. John Lennon has been shot."

The minute I heard that I gasped and felt a pop--the shock of the news had caused my water to break. We went racing to the hospital. We learned John Lennon was dead. Within 2 hours, at 1am on Dec. 9, our son Nic was born. I have always believed, and told him, that when John Lennon's spirit went out, his came in. So for the past 23 years, this day is not only a celebration of a birthday, but a time to reflect on the nature of the extradordinary soul who has touched my son's soul.

Nic is in his first year of law school. But his first passion is for his music--he plays guitar. Whenever we are in NY together, we visit sidewalk art shows in lower downtown and pick up some Lennon memorabilia. Nic feels the connection too.

So, on this birthday eve for Nic, I wish him success at whichever endeavor --law or music, he chooses. And to John Lennon, we wish eternal peace.

[comments now closed.]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you.

These warnings and rights have been the law in this country since 1966 when the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona. Yet the Court has revisited the opinion fifty times since then. Why?

In 2000, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the decision. Yet, this week, it will revisit three cases, from Missouri, Colorado and Nebraska, and a verdict for the police in any one of them will sound the death knell for Miranda.

None of the three cases will overturn Miranda directly.

The new cases pose a different and still unresolved question: What happens if the police either deliberately or inadvertently do not warn a suspect of his or her rights before questioning? If there is no penalty for violating the Miranda rights, police will not follow them, the rule's defenders say.

For all practical purposes, Miranda will be a dead letter" if the justices side with police and prosecutors in all three cases, said Stephen Schulhofer, a law expert at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York. University of Michigan law professor Yale Kamisar agrees. "They would be overruling Miranda without saying so," he said.

The first case , Missouri v. Siebert, will decide whether police can question first and warn later. At issue is the dubious police practice of two-part interrogations used to deliberately sneak around the Miranda requirement:

The police questioned Patrice Seibert without a Miranda warning until they got her to make an admission. Then, after a break long enough to claim that a new interrogation had begun, they gave her a Miranda warning and resumed questioning. They referred to her prior admission and got her to acknowledge it.

The Missouri Supreme Court threw out the confession in the case:

Two-part interrogations allow the police to put off the Miranda warning until the hard part is over. If police officers can do this, the court concluded, Miranda will be "meaningless."

The second case "tests whether police and prosecutors may use physical evidence, such as a gun or drugs, despite a Miranda violation."

The third case involves the police questioning an accused after he had been charged without giving him Miranda warnings or allowing him to consult with his lawyer before deciding whether to answer them.

For the facts of the three new cases along with historical context, we recommend Richard Willig's article in USA Today.

For the reasons the Supreme Court should refuse to weaken Miranda, we recommend Don't Make Miranda Meaningless by former FBI Director William Sessions (under Reagan and Bush I) and James E. Johnson, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for enforcement during the Clinton administration.

Our best wishes go out to Ozzy Osbourne who was seriously injured in an ATV accident today:

Ozzy Osbourne suffered serious injuries in an all-terrain vehicle accident on Monday (12/8), and was undergoing emergency surgery at an undisclosed hospital in England, according to a statement issued by his publicist.

Osbourne is said to have broken his collarbone, six ribs and a vertebra in his neck. Doctors were working to lift his collarbone, which was thought to be impacting a major artery and limiting the flow of blood to his arm. Surgeons were also trying to stop some "bleeding into his lungs," according to the statement. The injuries were not considered to be life-threatening, his publicist added.

Osbourne was riding the ATV on his property in Buckinghamshire, England, when the accident occurred. He had been in the U.K. to promote the British release of "Changes," a duet with his daughter Kelly. No further information was immediately available.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) held its sixth public hearing today on Capitol Hill. The focus of the hearing was “Security and Liberty.”

Former Deputy Atttorney General Larry Thompson defended the Patriot Act and the Government's terror war:

Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general, told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that counterterror laws should be strengthened so suspected terrorists could be denied bail and prosecutors could move with more confidence against those who provide material support to terror organizations. Thompson urged the government to make permanent several time-limited provisions of the Patriot Act, which expanded the government's surveillance and detention power.

Two law professors, Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU and Philip Heymann of Harvard and a deputy attorney general under former President Clinton, disagreed:

[Schulhofer] countered that more than a dozen government initiatives ``are demonstrably not justified as a response to 9-11.'' Limited resources that should be devoted to U.S. intelligence are being misspent on unnecessary new legal procedures, Schulhofer said. ``The common thread that runs through these measures,'' he said, ``is the erosion, and in many instances the complete obliteration, of traditional checks and balances.''

[Heymann in written testimony] said Congress should reject several assertions of authority invoked by the Bush administration in the name of security. They include the power to order military tribunals for U.S. residents who are not citizens and the power to collect information from an individual's associates while compelling the associates to keep the inquiry secret...

The commission will submit a report to Congress by May 27, 2004:

Congress created the bipartisan commission to study the nation's preparedness before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its response to them. It also is to recommend safeguards against similar disasters.

After deliberating five hours, a jury found Rep. Bill Janklow (R-SD) guilty of manslaughter. He faces up to ten years in prison and a House ethics committee investigation.

Update: Janklow resigned. There will be no ethics investigation.

Al Gore will endorse Howard Dean tomorrow.

Update: Joe Lieberman has issued this statement regarding Gore's upcoming Dean endorsement:

I was proud to have been chosen by Al Gore in 2000 to be a heartbeat away from the presidency -- and am determined to fight for what’s right, win this nomination, and defeat George W. Bush next year.

“I have a lot of respect for Al Gore -- that is why I kept my promise not to run if he did. Ultimately, the voters will make the determination and I will continue to make my case about taking our party and nation forward.”

Josh Marshall at Talking Points thinks Lieberman is slamming Gore with the "that's why I kept my promise" language. Atrios agrees.

We don't see it that way. We rank Lieberman at the bottom of our list of favored Democratic contenders, so our view is not an endorsement of him by any means, but we think it's a classy statement, free of criticism. He says he kept his promise because he respects Al Gore.

Maybe Lieberman is trying to say that his late entry into the race (out of deference to Al Gore's possible run) resulted in his campaign failing to take off. In which case, we think it's so subtle a criticism that the voters won't even pick up on it. We also think he'd be wrong to think that. Lieberman is the past. He wouldn't have made it no matter what.

Tim Russert thinks Al Gore is endorsing Dean in order to be in a position to run in 2008 if Dean loses. If he goes to bat for Dean and Dean loses, Russert says the Dems will owe him.

We do agree with just about everyone that Dean seems to have the nomination sewn up. As to whether he can beat Bush, we think he needs a very strong vice presidential candidate with a lot of foreign policy experience. And it's not Bob Graham.

In February, we wrote about cancer patient Steve Kubby, a transplanted Calfornian and medical pot activist, who was seeking aslyum in Canada. Kubby, a former California Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, was diagnosed with malignant adrenal gland cancer in the early 1970's. "In the span of a few years, he underwent four surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation. Nothing seemed to stop his steady decline." Except medical pot. Then he got charged with a pot offense in California, convicted and ordered to do 120 days. He fled to British Columbia in 2001 to avoid the jail sentence. He filed a refugee claim to avoid being deported from Canada to the U.S., and sought asylum.

Kubby has now lost his bid for asylum.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board ruled that Steve Kubby did not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or tortured, or that there was any risk to his life, if he returned to his home state of California. Kubby had said the 120-day jail term he was ordered to serve in California on minor drug charges would be a death sentence. He claimed if he did not smoke pot every hour, he would die from complications from adrenal cancer.

The opinion is here.

The trial of South Dakota Congressman and former Governor Bill Janklow is in the jury's hands. Here are the details of the defense closing argument. Among the issues the jury will be deliberating are these.

Florida's Secretary of State Glenda Hood does not favor paper trails for touch screen voters and even though they may be available, says they will be optional only.

Paper trails are essential as a safeguard to the system. As EFF says, your vote counts, but only if its counted.

Check out this New York Times editorial today on the subject:

Too many elections teeter on a few hundred votes, and candidates rightly expect human beings to be able to double-check the results. America's election apparatus needs to move firmly and quickly into the computer age. But the public must feel secure that each vote is really counted. At this stage, a voter-verified paper trail offers the public that necessary security .

Alarming summaries of independent research by Johns Hopkins and Rice University, MIT, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and even Congress echo critics' concerns. Here are some links to get you up to speed on the issue.

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20030724_evote_research_report.pdf

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20030723_eff_pr.php

http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/crsreport.pdf

The full extent of the threat to our electoral process has been documented in Beverly Harris's explosive expose, "Black Box Voting", which can be downloaded free of charge here [thanks to Eric Smith, a journalist and IT instructor in Tokyo, for the links].