When a Flip Flop is Good. And When it is Craven.

Celia Cohen has a piece up on the vote changes between last session’s death penalty repeal vote in the Senate and this year’s. Celia cites four changes: 1) Senator Richardson replacing Senator Venables, changing nothing since both voted no; 2) Senator Dave McBride’s switch from no to yes (which is good); 3) Senator Bob Marshall’s switch from yes to no (which is craven when you realize the reason) and 4) Senator Lavelle’s change from no to not voting (which is cowardly).

But first, the good flip flop.

“I traveled a long distance from nay to yea,” McBride said. “I oppose the death penalty at this moment in time, because it is, all arguments considered, a failed public policy that serves no purpose in our criminal justice system. It is not necessary for me to also believe — and I do not — that the death penalty is morally wrong.”

That’s fine. You don’t have to believe the death penalty is immoral to realize it has failed as a deterrent and shouldn’t be used due to the possibility of error.

But to vote to repeal, you have to believe it is either bad policy or immoral. So once you vote yes to repeal, how do you then vote no, and in favor of the death penalty, the following year?

That is what Senator Marshall did. And his reason why? Primary Election politics.

Marshall represents a Wilmington district where a majority of the population is African-American, and polls consistently show most African-Americans oppose the death penalty. Not to mention Marshall, who is white, only kept his seat in 2014 by winning a Democratic primary by 37 votes against Sherry Dorsey Walker, an African-American city councilwoman.

Yeah, so I guess Marshall is never running for office from the 3rd District again. And to those who believe that constituent calls make no difference, pay attention:

Marshall said he was “on the fence” last time and changed his vote because of a call from a constituent and because an amendment he unsuccessfully proposed before — to require convicted murderers to be locked down 23 hours a day — was not part of the bill.

A single person convinced the Senator! How did that call go? “Senator, please kill people. Pretty Please!” And, no, Senator, you were not on the fence last time. You voted to repeal. If you were really undecided, on the fence as it were, you would vote for the status quo, which was “no.” And another reason for changing his vote is because his Amendment to lock down murderers 23 hours a day failed? Even though it failed in 2013 when he voted yes? You are lying, Bob Marshall. You voted yes in 2013 to win an election. You voted no this time because, I guess, you never have to face the voters again. So happy retirement, Bob Marshall.

Another vingette I enjoyed from the Cohen piece was from Senator Ernie Lopez:

Lopez, a Republican senator, noted in his remarks that another senator had approached him after he voted “yes” two years ago and told him it meant he would not be re-elected. “He’s the only senator that didn’t come back,” Lopez said with a twist of the political knife. That would be Bob Venables, a conservative Democratic senator who lost his seat in Sussex County, where the Democrats’ voter turnout was dreadful in 2014.

Good riddance Bob Venables.