How To Lose Legitimacy in 10 Days, or When Law Enforcement Is Just Not That Into Democrats

January 9, 2023

Last week, Michigan Supreme Court Judge Richard Bernstein made a big stink because his fellow Justice Kyra Harris Bolden hired Pete Martel to be her clerk. Over a decade ago, Martel was paroled from prison, where he served time for robbing a convenience store and shooting at an officer.  Since then, he’s earned a law degree, been admitted to the Michigan Bar, undertaken countless service and advocacy tasks, and is in in the process of earning a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.   

None of that mattered to Bernstein, who argued that, because Martel’s three-decades-old crime involved shooting at a police officer, he should be disqualified from being a clerk. But he didn’t stop there. Bernstein made a bizarre argument that Martel’s presence in the office was criminal reform “gone too far.” “We're getting bail reform, and we keep pushing the envelope farther and farther, but do we really want to go this far?” he said. He went on to say that his politics have diverged from Bolden’s, even though they campaigned together as Democrats running for the state’s top court. “I’m no longer talking to her. We don’t share the same values,” Bernstein said, explaining how he was “disgusted” — conveniently after the fact that he partook in lefty money to get himself elected. 

To be clear, many have praised Martel’s work and he has worked with the State Appellate Defender’s Office since his parole in 2008. He has also expressed remorse for his past crimes. However, even if Martel weren’t a praised law school graduate who has earned his job (and even if judges didn't typically refrain from comment on each other's hiring criteria and decisions), it does not excuse Bernstein’s comments. He managed to conflate criminal justice reform with Martel’s hire. (Martel has since resigned out of a desire to prevent criticism of Bolden.) It’s also beyond the pall that Bernstein levels such criticism at his colleague Bolden — the first Black woman to serve on the state supreme court.

Bernstein didn’t stop at critiquing his colleague and the project of criminal system reform; he also decided to make his own political statement that no one asked for: “I’m all about rehabilitation. I’m a Democrat, but I’m also intensely pro-law enforcement, and this is a slap in the face to every police officer in Michigan.”

He explained this by referring to his blindness. “I’m just a disabled person who supports law enforcement because disabled people are always the targets of crime, and without them, I’d not be able to function in society.”  Of course, most disabled people don’t get to drive around race tracks for once-in-a-lifetime joy rides guided by a sheriff, during working hours. At a fairgrounds.  

In fact, let’s debunk the idea that disabled people rely upon law enforcement as some benevolent protector. While it is true that people with disabilities are around twice as likely to be victims of a crime, Black people with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to be the victim of violence at the hands of police. (No one keeps data on how many people killed by police have disabilities, including being deaf/ heard-of-hearing or blindness.) In fact, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, and Laquan McDonald all had impairments that contributed to their violent deaths by the cops. And it’s not just being killed. People of color with disabilities are also more likely to be arrested, often because their reactions to police questioning are assumed to be suspicious. In November of 2022, Florida sheriff’s deputies arrested a man with sight impairment who used a cane that deputies mistook for a gun.

Second, let’s talk about the foolishness of Bernstein’s “pro-police” assurances.

“I’m pro-law enforcement.” Democrats keep saying this even though law enforcement does not love them back.

In 2016 and 2020, law enforcement unions largely backed Donald Trump for president – the first time such groups backed any presidential candidate. (In fact, police unions historically backed Democrats, if they backed anyone, because … unions.) Trump staked his ground as the “pro-police” candidate through symbolic gestures. There was the time he told police to stop being nice to people they arrest, suggesting that it was OK to hit people in the head. Trump told police he was “on their side 1000%” when he campaigned at police lodges. He used the myth that police were “under siege” to garner their votes. And they reciprocated. A study of police votes in 2016 found that Trump’s campaigning swung at least a few states in his favor just enough to help him win.

Of course, on the ledger, Democrats have done more for law enforcement than Trump ever did. It was Joe Biden who provided stump speeches touting the need to fund law enforcement. It was the Biden administration that added nearly $40 billion to the federal budget for law enforcement agencies. And it was Democrats who pushed the strongest against the 2020 uprisings where the call was to “defund the police.”

Trump was actually pretty bad for the police. He refuses to pay the bills for law enforcement used at his rowdy rallies and owes around two million dollars in total to at least a dozen cities. He gutted programs that gave money to law enforcement agencies and withheld federal funding from agencies that did not comply with his immigration priorities and directives. In 2020, law enforcement unions largely supported a Republican candidate who wanted to cut $500 million from law enforcement. In 2019, Trump cut 50% of the COPS hiring program.

Yet, police support for Trump was unwavering. The money didn’t matter – it was the rhetoric. Law enforcement on the whole appreciated a candidate who unabashedly toyed with white supremacy, toxic masculinity, and xenophobia. The fact that Trump committed crimes did not matter – cops commit crimes all the time, after all.

Radley Balko rightly points out that being “pro-law enforcement” should be disqualifying for a judge. It suggests improper bias and implies Bernstein will side with cops even with the law forbids it.

I would add that Bernstein’s comments are even more despicable than they appear at first blush. He is playing into the lie that got Trump elected in the first place and that continues to disproportionately punish and kill people of color – and, yes, people with disabilities, too. Personally, I am unsurprised, if disappointed. Democrats continue to side with law enforcement, even though they know the stakes. And even though they know law enforcement will never love them back.  Indeed, it’s largely the right-leaning libertarians who’ve bothered to stand up to Bernstein and defend Martel. In addition to Radley, there’s Billy Binion at Reason.  The only person to refuse an invite to dinner with Bernstein during his recent victory lap in LA was a well-known conservative ex-judge. Perhaps Democrats should remember who is actually on their side.