Related ArticlesBest Black Friday, Cyber Monday TV deals 2024: My 85+ favorite deals on QLED, OLED, 4K, & more
By Amanda Hernández, Stateline.org (TNS) The outcomes of seven ballot measures in Arizona, California and Colorado reflect the stricter approach to crime that’s been seen across much of the country recently, with voters and policymakers driven by concerns over rising retail theft, homelessness, fentanyl misuse and challenges in police recruitment and retention. Voters have decided in recent years that they prefer to adopt progressive changes to the criminal justice system “somewhat less aggressively,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist and a political communications professor at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley. “Voters are always course correctors. They’re always adjusting and readjusting, trying to calibrate policy exactly the way they want it,” Schnur said. “It’s not uncommon for them to try to pull back on a reform effort that they think might be going too far.” This year, local and state leaders in blue and red states — including California, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont — shifted away from more liberal initiatives aimed at reining in police powers and reimagining criminal legal systems. They have instead embraced harsher penalties for offenses such as retail theft and possession or distribution of certain hard drugs, added more felony and misdemeanor offenses requiring cash bail, and moved to prohibit local governments from altering police traffic stop policies. Then this month, voters in Arizona, California and Colorado overwhelmingly backed ballot measures to increase prison time for certain crimes, revoke bail for others and crack down on illegal immigration and drug trafficking. While national crime data is notoriously difficult to track and understand, violent crime and property crime across the United States decreased in 2023, continuing a downward trend since the higher crime rates of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the FBI’s latest national crime report. Still, some individual cities and neighborhoods might be seeing higher crime rates, which could explain Americans’ views on the issue. Opinions on crime in the United States have improved over the past year, according to Gallup’s annual crime survey . Fewer people compared with last year believe national crime has increased or consider crime an “extremely” or “very” serious problem — but a majority of U.S. adults, 56%, still do. Perceptions are heavily influenced by political affiliation, the survey showed. While 60% of Democrats believe crime has gone down over the past year, 90% of Republicans think it has increased. In California, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, a measure that increases penalties for specific drug-related and theft crimes and that also reclassifies certain drug offenses as “treatment-mandated felonies.” This reclassification will allow judges to impose mental health or drug treatment requirements. Those who complete treatment would have their charges dismissed, while those who fail to meet the requirements could face up to three years in prison. “It’s not the hope or the intention to send a bunch of people to jail or prison who are using drugs. The goal is to incentivize people to engage in treatment again,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, one of the measure’s authors, in an interview with Stateline. The measure aims to address issues such as retail theft, homelessness, substance use disorders and fentanyl distribution, Reisig said. Under the new law, people convicted of theft at least twice may face felony charges on their third offense, regardless of the stolen item’s value. Additionally, those caught distributing fentanyl while armed with a loaded firearm will now face felony charges and up to four years in prison. Previously, possessing fentanyl and a loaded firearm was punishable by up to one year in jail. “Our strong belief is that this will send a deterrent message to others that there are consequences again,” Reisig said. The measure also received substantial support from law enforcement agencies across the state, although it remains unclear how departments might adjust their enforcement policies. Still, Reisig said, the measure will provide law enforcement with “some real, meaningful tools” to address specific crimes. “With options for increased sentencing and mandated treatment, Prop. 36 could provide tools to address repeat offenses more effectively,” Sacramento Police spokesperson Sgt. Dan Wiseman wrote in an email to Stateline. Proposition 36 partially reverses some changes made in 2014 by another ballot measure, Proposition 47, that reduced certain theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors to address prison overcrowding. But Reisig said that this is not a complete rollback. “It was drafted to be more down the middle and just kind of bring the pendulum back to center mass,” he said. “We’re not reinventing the wheel. We’re just bringing back something that had proven success, and I think all of California is going to benefit.” But some Democrats and criminal justice advocacy groups have argued that the measure could reintroduce drug war policies and result in longer prison sentences. California voters also rejected Proposition 6 by a close margin, 53%-47%. The measure would have amended the state constitution to prohibit forcing inmates into labor as punishment. The proposal originated from a state task force examining whether California should provide reparations to Black residents. In contrast, voters in more conservative states such as Alabama and Tennessee have approved measures in recent elections to abolish involuntary servitude in their prisons. In a similar effort, Nevada voters this year approved a measure repealing constitutional language that permitted slavery and involuntary servitude as forms of criminal punishment. Schnur said Proposition 6 could have been rejected in part because California voters might have carried anti-criminal sentiment over from one ballot measure to the other. “Because Prop 36 passed by such a large margin, it’s entirely possible that many voters were already thinking in a more restrictive way about criminal justice policy, and those feelings may have moved over into their vote against Prop 6,” Schnur said. In Colorado, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the state legislature that makes first-degree murder suspects ineligible for bail if prosecutors can demonstrate a strong enough case. Previously, the state constitution allowed only people charged with “capital offenses” to be denied bail. This change restores bail policies that were in place before Colorado repealed the death penalty in 2020. Voters also backed a pair of measures placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign led by Advance Colorado, a conservative political group. One measure requires people convicted of certain violent crimes, including second-degree murder, aggravated robbery and sexual assault, to serve at least 85% of their sentence — up from the previous 75% — before becoming eligible for parole. The other ballot measure directs the legislature to allocate $350 million from the state’s general fund to help local law enforcement agencies hire additional officers, provide training and bonus pay, and establish a $1 million death benefit for the families of first responders — including police, firefighters and EMTs — killed in the line of duty. The approval of that measure could deepen Colorado’s $1 billion budget deficit , though the financial impact will depend on how quickly lawmakers implement the program. Since the measure does not specify a timeline, legislators may choose to allocate the funds gradually rather than all at once in the next budget year, according to Kristi Burton Brown, Advance Colorado’s executive vice president. Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed two criminal justice measures this year: One mandates life imprisonment for people convicted of child sex trafficking; the other goes after both illegal immigration and the sale of fentanyl not made in the United States. Proposition 314 grants law enforcement the authority to arrest noncitizens who do not have legal authorization to enter or live in the United States. The law specifically targets people attempting to enter or who have entered Arizona outside official ports of entry. This measure expands police powers to address illegal immigration at the state level. Under Proposition 314, unauthorized entry into Arizona will become a Class 1 misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses. The measure also allows state judges to order deportations. However, portions of the law cannot take effect until a court — likely the U.S. Supreme Court — rules on the constitutionality of a similar law in Texas. If the Texas law is upheld and remains enforceable for at least 60 days, Arizona’s law could then go into effect. The law now is awaiting an appeals court decision, which is expected to itself be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter the ruling. And the measure adds a new state felony penalty for selling fentanyl manufactured outside the country that results in another person’s death. Some critics argue that it could lead to racial profiling and heightened community tensions, while supporters claim it will bolster border security and reduce crimes linked to illegal immigration. Immigration enforcement is usually a federal responsibility, and some critics also have raised concerns about the additional financial and operational burden local law enforcement agencies may face. Some local police departments contacted by Stateline were unsure of how the measure would be enforced, noting that they are waiting for further direction from state officials. The Phoenix Police Department said in an email to Stateline that it would continue its current enforcement practices, which prohibit officers from asking about immigration status during traffic stops unless required by state law and consensual contacts with the public, according to department spokesperson Sgt. Mayra Reeson. Under existing policies, Phoenix officers may only transport people to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they are wanted for a criminal immigration violation and have no pending state criminal charges, or if the person has only a civil immigration violation, which includes being in the country without legal authorization, and consents to the transport. The ACLU of Arizona has vowed to explore all options to block the implementation of Proposition 314, calling it unconstitutional and harmful. ©2024 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Lifetime Brands president Daniel Siegel sells $18,710 in stockChildren of the wealthy and connected get special admissions consideration at some elite U.S. universities, according to new filings in a class-action lawsuit originally brought against 17 schools. Georgetown’s then-president, for example, listed a prospective student on his “president’s list” after meeting her and her wealthy father at an Idaho conference known as “summer camp for billionaires,” according to Tuesday court filings in the price-fixing lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court in 2022. Although it’s always been assumed that such favoritism exists, the filings offer a rare peek at the often secret deliberations of university heads and admissions officials. They show how schools admit otherwise unqualified wealthy children because their parents have connections and could possibly donate large sums down the line, raising questions about fairness. Stuart Schmill, the dean of admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in a 2018 email that the university admitted four out of six applicants recommended by then-board chairman Robert Millard, including two who “we would really not have otherwise admitted.” The two others were not admitted because they were “not in the ball park, or the push from him was not as strong.” In the email, Schmill said Millard was careful to play down his influence on admissions decisions, but he said the chair also sent notes on all six students and later met with Schmill to share insight “into who he thought was more of a priority.” The filings are the latest salvo in a lawsuit that claims that 17 of the nation’s most prestigious colleges colluded to reduce the competition for prospective students and drive down the amount of financial aid they would offer, all while giving special preference to the children of wealthy donors. “That illegal collusion resulted in the defendants providing far less aid to students than would have been provided in a free market,” said Robert Gilbert, an attorney for the plaintiffs. Since the lawsuit was filed, 10 of the schools have reached settlements to pay out a total of $284 million, including payments of up to $2,000 to current or former students whose financial aid might have been shortchanged over a period of more than two decades. They are Brown, the University of Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Yale. Johns Hopkins is working on a settlement and the six schools still fighting the lawsuit are the California Institute of Technology, Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame and the University of Pennsylvania. MIT called the lawsuit and the claims about admissions favoritism baseless. “MIT has no history of wealth favoritism in its admissions; quite the opposite,” university spokesperson Kimberly Allen said. “After years of discovery in which millions of documents were produced that provide an overwhelming record of independence in our admissions process, plaintiffs could cite just a single instance in which the recommendation of a board member helped sway the decisions for two undergraduate applicants." In a statement, Penn also said the case is meritless that the evidence shows that it doesn't favor students whose families have donated or pledged money to the Ivy League school. “Plaintiffs’ whole case is an attempt to embarrass the University about its purported admission practices on issues totally unrelated to this case," the school said. Notre Dame officials also called the case baseless. “We are confident that every student admitted to Notre Dame is fully qualified and ready to succeed,” a university spokesperson said in a statement. The South Bend, Indiana, school, though, did apparently admit wealthy students with subpar academic backgrounds. According to the new court filings, Don Bishop, who was then associate vice president for enrollment at Notre Dame, bluntly wrote about the “special interest” admits in a 2012 email, saying that year's crop had poorer academic records than the previous year's. The 2012 group included 38 applicants who were given a “very low” academic rating, Bishop wrote. He said those students represented “massive allowances to the power of the family connections and funding history,” adding that “we allowed their high gifting or potential gifting to influence our choices more this year than last year.” The final line of his email: “Sure hope the wealthy next year raise a few more smart kids!” Some of the examples pointed to in this week's court filings showed that just being able to pay full tuition would give students an advantage. During a deposition, a former Vanderbilt admissions director said that in some cases, a student would get an edge on the waitlist if they didn’t need financial aid. The 17 schools were part of a decades-old group that got permission from Congress to come up with a shared approach to awarding financial aid. Such an arrangement might otherwise violate antitrust laws, but Congress allowed it as long as the colleges all had need-blind admissions policies, meaning they wouldn't consider a student’s financial situation when deciding who gets in. The lawsuit argues that many colleges claimed to be need-blind but routinely favored the children of alumni and donors. In doing so, the suit says, the colleges violated the Congressional exemption and tainted the entire organization. The group dissolved in recent years when the provision allowing the collaboration expired. The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .
Slope Launches Commercial BNPL Card Powered by Marqeta
Jim Alexander: They talk about “winning the press conference” – shorthand for an acquisition or coaching hire that’s more splash than substance. Given Bill Belichick’s historic reticence with the media, I’m not sure that’s what the University of North Carolina did Wednesday. But win the announcement? No doubt. Hiring the 72-year-old Belichick , winner of six Super Bowls in New England and also famously reluctant to share decision-making duties, to his first college coaching job seems weird at first glance, and also at second and third. Asking a guy who referred to America’s favorite photo sharing app as “Instaface” a while back – which is actually, I believe, a Belichick running joke – to try to connect with young people for whom social media is almost more important than eating? Good luck with that. But this isn’t as nutty as it appears, in my mind, for one reason: College football is becoming more professionalized by the day. NIL agreements, the transfer portal, players represented by agents, a future where schools themselves will pay the players, and maybe even unionization down the road? Guys whose whole careers have been spent in college football are starting to wonder if they can handle these changes. So why not bring in an NFL coach to help with this transition? Especially one with the résumé of Belichick? It’s a risk, but who’s to say he can’t handle the transition to coaching 18- to 22-year-olds better than college football lifers can when it comes to dealing with agents, rustling up NIL money, etc.? And yes, I realize there’s a slight flaw in that logic, because Chip Kelly was both a college and a pro head coach, and we saw how little energy he directed toward NIL matters and how far back it set UCLA’s program. Will Belichick lean into it with more energy? We’ll see. What do you think, Mirjam? They’re already putting up betting propositions – in this case, at BetOnline.ag – on not only North Carolina’s record under Belichick this coming season but how many power conference transfers will come to UNC (the over/under is four), how many years he’ll stay (21⁄2, or half his contract), and – get this one – What will happen first with Bill Belichick’s 20-something girlfriend? Enroll in classes at UNC or date a UNC football player? Yeesh! Mirjam: Wait, are there really odds on that last one? Oh boy. You mentioned Chip Kelly, and I’ve also been thinking about his up-and-down track record, in college and the pros, since he caught lightning in a bottle at Oregon. Also about Deion Sanders, who has been anything but traditional in how he’s approached his job at Colorado – making recruits come to him, being up front about treating the transfer portal as free agency – and how that has transformed the Buffs from doormat to contender in two short years. And how before that, he was at Jackson State from 2020 to 2022. But Belichick doesn’t have the charisma Coach Prime does. Sure, he’s got his own aura as the NFL’s greatest modern coach, and if he wants control – which is a large piece of why he hasn’t been invited to coach another NFL team – he’d have it as a college coach, where reports are that UNC will increase its NIL package for football to $20 million from $4 million. But will he be too blunt for today’s college player, who isn’t contractually obligated to stay anywhere longer than a year? Too honest and critical in his assessments? Will he simply pass on the fanfare and glad-handing that’s supposed to be required of college coaches? We’re gonna find out. But if I were betting, I wouldn’t bet on North Carolina becoming a powerhouse under Belichick. Or even on Belichick loving the gig, because you can take the amateurism out of college football, but still it’s not the NFL. Jim: I’d take the under on the 21⁄2 years, and that has nothing to do with age or energy. Trust me, I’m the last guy who would call someone too old to do whatever. But college football is different, especially in that region of the country. I saw something a while back in the Washington Post which suggested that the hatred for rivals in college football is a feature and not a bug. And that intensity of emotion extends to everything involving the sport, which is why alumni and boosters play such a large role. Let Belichick start out, say, 2-4, and see what the reaction is. Yeah, NFL fans can be rabid, but it’s nothing compared to the way emotions seesaw in college football nation. All of that said, I stand on the premise that the changes in college football – in all of college sports – require an adjustment in the way coaches and athletic departments do business, and I’m not sure the old idea of the program as the coach’s fiefdom applies any longer. More programs in football and basketball are hiring “general managers,” which are positions to oversee NIL payments and the groups that make them – and, ultimately, the disbursements from the schools themselves – and probably also will have a role in player personnel matters. As an aside, the one guy I’m sure – positive, actually – could handle this transition seamlessly has been teaching classes at USC this fall. Pete Carroll made the switch from pro to college the first time and built a dynasty, made the switch from college back to the NFL and built a Super Bowl champ in Seattle, and if he wanted to and felt up to it I’m sure he could handle the new era of college football. (And let’s hear no talk about extra benefits or the like during Carroll’s USC run. You really don’t think stuff was happening elsewhere? The beauty of today’s system is that everything everywhere is above the table now.) Next subject: Is the transfer portal out of control? Is it approaching, or has it already gotten to, the point where there’s too much movement and requires some additional limitations? Old friend Lane Kiffin came out and said what I’m sure lots of other people in the game are thinking: The timing – the combination of the transfer portal opening and early signing day right around the time teams are preparing for bowl or playoff games – is “dumb.” He’s right, but it’s another consequence of a sport that has no leadership and thus has become pure chaos. How do we solve this? I say the first step would be to make Kiffin college football’s first commissioner, but that’s just me. Mirjam: It’s a whirlwind, for sure. Utter chaos. And that free agency is happening on the eve of bowl games tells you everything you need to know about how little college football values bowl games anymore. There’s something to be said for giving athletes agency in a game where coaches come and go all the time. There’s something to their being categorized as employees and given rights as employees, free to give notice and change jobs when they find a better one. Shoot, the non-athletic regular people studying on college campus known as students are free to transfer schools whenever they like, too. But there’s also something to be said about the grass not always being greener. We’ve heard stories about programs allegedly reneging on payment promises, for one. And despite whatever tampering abounds, athletes have to be careful before jumping into the portal with both feet – and it’s doubtful most of them are, considering how incredibly many are transferring. Like, will starting from scratch – or maybe not scratch, but as a player whose last situation didn’t work out – be for the best? Will they really end up in a better situation when the music stops and everyone’s fighting for a seat? Maybe, every case will be its own. It’s hard to know in a scene so chaotic. So, yes, Lane Kiffin, or a conference commission – as Chip Kelly suggested – or some entity helping create and enforce transfer guidelines would sure help everyone. Jim: My suggestion, beyond having someone – anyone – fully in charge of all of the sport’s various stakeholders? Employment, and contracts. This is something the NCAA is resisting with all of its might, while hoping for Congress to hand out an antitrust exemption. But it might be the only way to restore sanity to the process. Make players employees, with signed contracts – could be one year, could be two, could be four years for true stars, could include option years. The system would allow players free agency but would also give programs a certain amount of certainty from year to year, as opposed to a coach walking into the locker room after the final regular-season game and wondering how many of these guys will opt to stay. Another advantage: Those contracts would include bowl games, and there would be no more sitting out just because. That’s something that drives college football people crazy. And we have to understand: College football is a different beast from every other sport on campus. Other sports may come up with different rules. Other levels – Group of Five, mid-major basketball schools, etc. – will have different needs and require different rules as well. But again, a leadership vacuum at the top helps nobody, aside from FOX and ESPN. Before we go, however, we must note that 2024, the first year without the Pac-12 as we knew it, turns out to have been a statement on behalf of college football in the West. Oregon – your alma mater, Mirjam – is the top seed in the College Football Playoff. Fellow Pac-12 refugee Arizona State is in the mix as champion of the Big 12 and the Sun Devils’ coach, Kenny Dillingham, is a former Oregon guy. Boise State will represent the Mountain West (and future reconstituted Pac-12) in the field. Meanwhile, three of the four Heisman Trophy finalists are from the West – Oregon’s Dillon Gabriel, Colorado’s Travis Hunter and Boise State’s Ashton Jeanty. Makes me miss the old Pac-12 a little more. Mirjam: Right?! How ’bout them Ducks? Both top-ranked/seeded Oregon and Dillingham. Season’s not over yet, but what a showing by the westerners ... and what that tells me is, yes, it’s a shame the Pac-12 is no more. But also, Oregon – with its 14 transfers in starting roles and a reported $23 million in NIL money – is good at playing the modern game. And so too is Dillingham, who has used a few of his postgame press conferences as marketing opportunities, making direct pitches to Arizona businesses to funnel money into the program: “If you had fun watching [Cam Skattebo] play and make those plays, it was there all night ... because it’s a different day and age in college football. And if that was something that we want to continue to do, then what’s that saying? Pay the man his money, right? Isn’t that a saying? Pay the man his money. Pay these guys what they deserve to be paid because right now our team is underpaid. We’re doing more with guys who just got it out the mud, but eventually you should get what you deserve. Our guys deserve more ...” Now imagine Belichick making that kind of pitch.EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) — If the Giants' franchise-record 10th straight loss proved anything, it's that New York could use a young franchise quarterback. Rookie Michael Penix Jr. showed what a young QB can do on Sunday against the Giants, who need to learn from it. The No. 8 overall pick in the draft, Penix played a nearly flawless game in his first career start to help in their best performance in weeks. The Giants gambled in 2019 that Daniel Jones would be their franchise QB and it really never panned out. The one exception was the 2022 season, when the No. 6 overall pick had a career year and led New York to a 9-7-1 record and a playoff berth in the first season after Joe Schoen was hired as general manager and Brian Daboll was named coach. The Giants even won a playoff game. With the release of Jones last month, the Giants (2-13) are now a team without a quarterback who can perform at the level required of an NFL starter. Tommy DeVito and Drew Lock have split the last four starts but neither has provided much of a spark for the league's worst offense. Lock handed the Falcons the game with two interceptions that were returned for touchdowns. To turn things around next season, the Giants must find a quarterback. “I’d say it’s very important,” Daboll said Monday. New York is going to have a high pick in the draft in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in late April. It could even be the No. 1 overall selection. Choosing the right quarterback is going to be hard. There isn't a can't-miss choice in 2025 draft and forcing one early would be a mistake. Unless the Giants are convinced that Cam Ward, Shedeur Sanders, Jalen Milroe or someone else is the next franchise player, they have have so many needs that it would be better to wheel and deal and fill as many holes as possible. Even if the Giants take a quarterback in the second round, there's bound to be someone available who has a chance to be better than what they have now. The calendar. The season ends in less than two weeks. The franchise is in disarray, and a shakeup appears likely. Daboll's future as the coach is not bright, considering the current skid and two straight losing seasons. Schoen has to share the blame and so do co-owners John Mara and Steve Tisch, who hired the GM and coach. LB Darius Muasau. The sixth-round draft pick out of UCLA has started the last three games since Bobby Okereke (back) was hurt and eventually put on injured reserve last week. Muasau had 11 tackles Sunday along with a quarterback hit and a tackle for a loss. He made the defensive calls after LB Micah McFadden left with a neck injury. Lock. In his starts, Lock has had three interceptions returned for touchdowns. He also lost a fumble on a strip-sack at Atlanta. Lock sustained a shoulder injury during the game and had an MRI on Monday. Besides Lock and McFadden, S Jason Pinnock (eye) also left the game. C John Michael Schmitz and RB Tyrone Tracy were evaluated for ankle injuries on Monday. 1 — Thanks to the Raiders' victory over the Jaguars, the Giants will have the No. 1 overall pick in the draft with two more losses. For the ninth and final time, the Giants will try to find a way to win at MetLife Stadium. New York is 0-8 heading into Sunday's game against the Indianapolis Colts. Its only other winless season at home was in 1974 when New York played at the Yale Bowl in New Haven, Connecticut, while Giants Stadium was being built. AP NFL:
