It's a new day, and we have a new DA (and a bit of comic relief, as Seth Williams and Michael Nutter sparred onstage at the Kimmel Center this morning over which of their slogans owed what to whom).

I sat in the front row and looked up as Pennsylvania's first African-American District Attorney was sworn into office.

He joins the police chief and the mayor in committing to stem what the mayor calls a genocide of young African-American men in Philadelphia: over 700 killed in the past three years.

The mayor charged Seth Williams with Frederick Douglass's words:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

Seth has family, friends, supporters, and his sense of what must be done, all propelling him. I hope that he will hold close his own words, that "justice without mercy is evil," and always struggle actively with the power that he now holds.

Congratulations, Seth! And congratulations to everyone who brought about this historic day.

Julio Maldonado was deported to Peru on Thursday, October 22, 2009, after arriving in the U.S. 38 years ago at the age of 3.

He and his cousin, Denis Calderon, had been victims of an attack based on their ethnicity in 1996. Julio was wrongfully convicted of aggravated assault, incarcerated for a total of 8 years, and then deported.

Here's today's Elections 101 lesson: when some candidates are desperate, they'll say anything.

Hence Michael Untermeyer Republican for District Attorney (formerly, Democrat for Sheriff), unwilling to go gently into that good night, burns and raves:

There is no racial profiling regarding death penalty sentencing in Pennsylvania."

The PA judiciary, that pristine priesthood, blemished by racism?

Say it ain't so! So, facts be damned, Untermeyer did.

Thus, at a news conference outside the Constitution Center, state Sen. Anthony Williams, NAACP president J. Whyatt Mondesire and the Rev. Audrey Brunson, president of the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity stated the obvious common sense that most Philadelphians are evolved enough to understand:

Sen. Williams cited a 2003 study by a blue-ribbon commission that was appointed by the state Supreme Court to investigate race and gender issues in the criminal-justice system.

I've lived in Philly just over a year now, and for most of that time I've worked as a staff attorney for a local nonprofit helping immigrants and refugees stay in this country with their families. I have worked in the field for about three years and I've seen a lot of messed up things in that short time. Doing this work is a good way to develop a thick skin. But almost three months ago, I learned about a local case that made my jaw drop.

Julio Maldonado and his cousin Denis Calderon were victims of a racial attack in Northeast Philly in 1996. Julio had come to the U.S. at the age of three from Peru and had been a lawful permanent resident since age seven. He lived in New York and was visiting Denis's home in Philly. Denis's family was the first Latin@ family in the neighborhood.

Representative Brendan Boyle's bill, introduced in early June, would largely end parole for repeat violent offenders. The bill was spurred by outrage over shootings of police officers, and has the support of the governor and Philadelphia's likely next DA, Seth Williams.

There's an essential logic at the heart of the bill: if someone is in jail, he or she can't commit crimes outside. That logic can be extended indefinitely: the longer someone is in jail...

But you can't imprison a person forever because they may commit future crimes. (The NY Times has explored the problems with attempts to indefinitely detain sex offenders in a disturbing series of articles.) Inevitably the criminal justice system has to draw a line as to when a term of imprisonment will end. This bill can't end the risk that a police officer will be killed by someone who has been released from prison unless no one is released from prison (another bit of obvious logic).

There are several lines of criticism of this bill: it will cost a lot at a time when we are looking to cut the prison costs that have ballooned in recent decades, it is unjust and possibly unconstitutional to count juvenile crimes when those convictions did not include the same procedural protections afforded to adults.

But it seems to me that the problem the bill responds to--a breakdown in the parole system whereby people who still pose great risk to others are released--is not fixed at all by the bill. My guess is that Seth Williams supports the bill because it seems to devote prison resources to people who--because of their demonstrated criminal histories--need to be there the most, thus shifting those limited resources away from first time or low level drug criminals who don't really need to be in jail.

I'm not sure that the blunt tool of Rep. Boyle's bill is the way to do this. We already have a multiple-strikes rule that sets sentencing parameters for repeat violent offenders: this could be tweaked if we decide terms should in fact be longer (though, as noted, you have to face the fact of release at some point and can't use a bill like this to create political cover forever). And it seems more productive to look hard at the parole system to ensure that parole is only granted where there is both evidence of rehabilitation and a lack of factors in a person's criminal history that demonstrate continued risk.

To do otherwise--to simply remove the possibility of parole--is to abandon further the rehabilitative purpose of imprisonment and instead simply and literally embrace warehousing.

This is not the press you want before election day:

The Philadelphia Board of Ethics just hit Dan McCaffery's campaign for District Attorney with a lawsuit, claiming he and his treasurer "deliberately violated the city's campaign finance law" by taking in too much political action committee money in 2008 and misstating the amount the campaign took in from a PAC run by his law firm.

So, the board alleges that McCaffery took too much money from PACs in 2008. There is a $100,000 dollar limit, and he artificially split a donation from his own firms PAC to get around that. And now he is being sued over it. Being sued is not the press you want pre-election day, so I suspect you will see a settlement soon enough. Frankly, it is strange that even got this far. Do you really want a lawsuit saying you are deliberately violating the law 7 days before an election?

Then, the board announced that they reached an agreement with Seth Williams over sloppy bookkeeping from last year. They fined him $3,750, and noted that he subsequently 'unsloppified,' and had cooperated with the board. Not the best press either, but, it is also the same thing we knew. Sloppy bookkeeping in 2008 that has since been fixed.

From a horse race perspective, what is most interesting to me is how much freaking money McCaffery has raised from PACs. Just look, for example, at how much money he received as a result of John Dougherty shaking the electricians tree:

IBEW Local 351 Pennsylvania PAC Fund, Hammonton, NJ 08037, 03/27/2009 $10000.00
IBEW COPE, washington, DC 20001, 04/02/2009 $2500.00
Local IBEW 98 Committee on Political Education, phila, PA 19130, 04/02/2009 $10000.00
IBEW Local 743 political Education Find, reading, PA 19608, 04/01/2009 $5000.00
IBEW COPE International, Washington, DC 20001, 04/30/2009 $10000.00
Local 98 IBEW Cope, 09/04/2008, $10,000.00
IBEW Cope, 09/22/2008, $1,500.00
Philadelphia Phuture PAC, Date 12/31/2008, $5,000.00

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a union spending money on a campaign. But, what it shows is kind of instructive when you compare Dan McCaffery's and Seth's campaign reports.

McCaffery raised $230,000 this calendar year. All of his donations are listed in seven pages, because most of the money came in big checks from building trades PACs.

Seth raised basically the same amount, about $250,000. His donations take up 26 pages. Why? Because while he certainly got some big checks, he is relying on scads of smaller dollar donors.

Ask yourself who is better positioned? Someone with lots of individuals donating money, or someone with big checks directed by a couple of people?

Congratulations to City Controller candidate Brett Mandel who last night joined District Attorney candidate Seth Williams on the Philly For Change Reform Ticket for the May 19 Democratic Primary, winning the vote for endorsement with 85% of ballots cast.

Congratulations too to the victorious Philly For Change Judicial Slate including Court of Common Pleas candidates Christine Adair, Dan Anders, Greg Coleman, Joyce Eubanks, Angeles Roca, and Diane Thompson, Municipal Court candidate Dawn Segal, and Delaware County Court of Common Pleas candidate Nancy Rhodes Koons. The judicial slate was unanimously approved for endorsement at last night's meetup.

I was sent this today.

Research 2000 Poll for the Seth Williams Campaign
400 voters, 5% MOE

Seth Williams: 37%
Dan McElhatton: 15%
Dan McCaffery: 13%
Michael Turner: 2%
Brian Grady: 2%

Well, that is pretty good news. It doesn't mean Seth is going to win, but, it is a nice place to be.

Obviously, there are a still a lot of undecideds. In all likelihood, many of those undecideds just will not vote at all in an election like this. When the undecided were then asked who they were leaning to, most still said no one (92%), followed by 6% for Seth, and 1 percent each for the Dan's.

What I take away from the poll is this: We are in a real position in the City for transformative change, very, very soon. But it cannot be done without all of us helping.

Later today, we will have info up about the fundraiser. If you want to help, send me an email: danielua@gmail.com.

Yesterday at City Hall, Seth Williams unveiled a policy paper that really makes me proud to support him. You can read it here.

In it, he pledges to use the DA's office to protect consumers against fraud and predatory business practices. He'd use a underutilized tool, the state Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (or "CPL"), which gives the DA the power to levy fines and penalties and ultimately shut down abusive businesses. Potentially, the DA can wield the same regulatory power as the state Attorney General.

This is a big deal. People in neighborhoods all over Philadelphia are victimized by scams and frauds, and only particularly large or widespread problems get the attention of the US Attorney or the State Attorney general, who must deal with severe resource constraints. But the DA is right here, already in these neighborhoods, and the CPL will allow them to quickly respond to problems with relatively low administrative costs (it's a civil tool with a lower burden of proof than a standard criminal fraud prosecution).

The plan also will build important ties between the DA, the community, other branches of government, and nonprofit legal services. There's a legacy of conflict from Lynn Abraham's tenure, which this plan will help wash away.

And since one of the most intractable problems in dealing with crime in Philadelphia is the lack of trust between many communities and law enforcement, this plan can start helping bridge that mistrust. That's crucial.

Mostly I am proud of the vision this plan reflects: justice isn't just retribution, justice is a process. The first line of the plan states,

"There is a clear and compelling link between financial stresses individuals face and crimes that are committed. If the City of Philadelphia is going to reduce crime -- and not just increase arrests and convictions -- it must do more to address the victimization of its residents by abusive business practices that can lead to crime, but ultimately weaken our community."

This is progressive thinking. It's thinking that acknowledges root causes, and sets out to do something about them. It's a vision of the DA's power that is constructive and not merely reactive. And I think it shows a very important humility that has been lacking from the DA for years now: dealing with crime is a difficult process of trying to piece together neighborhoods that are broken. It's a little bit of what Obama invoked in that now-old speech:

For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

And I'm glad there is some of that sensibility being brought into this election.

Tomorrow on the Fourth Floor of City Hall at 11AM, Seth Williams will be holding a pretty exciting press conference.

He'll announce the endorsement of important Philadelphia progressive groups spanning from gay rights to poor people's organizing: Liberty City Democratic Club, ACORN, Americans for Democratic Action, Neighborhood Networks, and Philly for Change. These endorsements are a major vote of confidence from a lot of different and important constituencies, and I think reflect Seth's attention to how crime and the criminal justice system affect people's lives in different ways beyond a simple binary of victim and perpetrator.

He'll also unveil a new policy paper, dealing with economic justice. The proposal shows a great vision of how the DA's office has power to positively affect the lives of many more Philadelphians than it has in the past.

Also: stay tuned for another YPP-sponsored benefit for Seth coming up on May 8th. Email info@youngphillypolitics.com to get on the host committee!

And the beat goes on...

Next to the job of mayor, Philadelphia district attorney is the most important elected office in the city.

The district attorney manages a staff of 300 lawyers and a $30 million budget, in a criminal-justice system that handles more than 1,000 cases per week. In a city plagued by gun violence, the job is critical to public safety and quality of life.

Lynne M. Abraham chose not to run this year for the job she's held since 1991. Five Democrats, all of whom have served as assistant D.A.s, are vying for the job in the May 19 primary.

The Inquirer's endorsement goes to SETH WILLIAMS, who came close to defeating Abraham four years ago.

... and the beat goes on...

Well, I left last night's DA candidates' debate wanting to vote for Dave Davies. Just kidding (mostly). I left convinced that Seth is the clear best choice.

On one hand, that's no great shock. I've been committed to Seth's campaign since the beginning. But the reasons I think I made the right choice were clear last night.

As many people have noted, the candidates (with one glaring cop-loving and judge-baiting exception) have adopted a lot of Seth's progressive rhetoric. In part, that's great: for my whole conscious life we've lived with a DA who can't see past the death penalty, and it is truly great to see the city collectively recognizing that we can't kill or jail our way out of our problems with crime and social breakdown.

But it makes it harder to draw lines between the candidates when they all throw out "community courts," or "community-based prosecution," or "smarter not tougher." The most frustrating moments were those when everyone (save McCaffery) throws out one of these ideas but aren't forced to say what it actually means or, more importantly, how they'd implement the policy change. This is crucial when it comes to something everyone (except McCaffery) agrees on: get the right people in jail and the wrong people OUT. There's been some level of awareness that this needs to happen in Philadelphia for a while, not least because of the federal court order telling us. But the problem is in making it happen.

I'll throw out some of the high and low points below, but I want to state clearly that this is a crucially important decision for all of us, and we have to put someone in office who we can trust to do the right thing, to act in the interest of blind justice for all citizens, high or low. Too often last night the policy seemed beside the point, as everyone recognized that they were playing a political game (I see your labor unions and raise you the black clergy and the FOP). Seth at times sounded like he knew you should vote for him, because he was clearly the best, and you were supposed to just figure that out. None of these guys should act so entitled.

But Seth is the only one of these men who appears to have an abiding, long-term interest in the criminal justice system and in figuring out how to fix its many flaws. And he's the only one who really voices a personal stake in, and passion for, using the power of the DA's office for good. That's what puts meaning behind the progressive catch-phrases.

So here are my notes on the debate, and I would be delighted if anyone else had different impressions they could put up.

1. I love Dave Davies. My number one favorite moment: when he forced everyone to say right then and there whether they would pledge as DA to never campaign on behalf of other politicians. After the half-awkward answers, Davies immediately says, 'actually, this is such a political position, prove to me you have the political skills to succeed at it.'

2. I love Dave Davies part 2. This could also be titled, Dave Davies clearly reads YPP. Davies' first real round of questions forced everyone to answer for their worst bit of publicity. For Michael Turner (who was generally very well spoken and who appeared well-meaning), Davies asked him if the fact that he left his short time at the DA's office for a civil career defending large companies against plaintiffs claiming personal injuries due to asbestos didn't, well, maybe raise questions about Turner's sense of public service.

3. McCaffery really loves the police and his entire lengthy family history. And he is still trotting out his big plan to create a website in order to shame lazy judges. Aside from some recognition of the particular problems posed by drug addiction in the criminal justice system, McCaffery was the only candidate that did not adopt any progressive stance on administering the DA's office. In fact, when Davies asked each man to say what they would change from the old system, McCaffery, after an encomium to Lynne Abraham, said that he would not substantially change anything (except to shift slightly more resources to cracking down on juvenile crime through truancy laws, great) because she was just such a perfect DA.

4. Grady is a dude who owns his past: "Why say alleged? I did it. I punched him." His heart really seemed in the right place, but he seemed kind of, um, intense and barely contained at times. It's not his fault that he has to lean down and forward to get to the microphone, but the direct-eye-contact closing statement was kind of intimidating, like something from a gangster movie.

More seriously, Grady did seem to deeply feel the issues facing the DA (check out this article he wrote about his experiences campaigning). But when he told us all at the end of his closing to consider his background as showing he was clearly the most qualified, that seemed to come out of nowhere, as it is not at all clear to me that he has the experience to make him ready to take on that office. I hope he channels his passions into other forms of public service after all this.

5. I spoke about why I left the debate thinking Seth was the clear choice. But Davies (validly) and McCaffery (dishonestly) touched on the accounting issues in the background of the ballot challenge. Davies said that the Daily News investigation of Seth's finances showed no evidence of self-dealing, but that there was what could be phrased 'an accounting mess.' He asked whether this cast doubt on Seth's ability to manage an office and budget the size of the DA's. Seth stumbled in answering, first with a flat joke ("I'm not running for controller") and then by general denial. Seth and the campaign need to continue to take responsibility for sloppy accounting practices and simply do a good job going forward: all on-time filings, all expenses neatly accounted for.

McCaffery's claim that they challenged Seth to make him return money to the campaign that he or family members had gotten as unreported 'salary' was shameful, since after everything that claim is still completely unsubstantiated, and it is a critically serious charge.

6. When asked about their stance on the use of statistical risk analysis methods in sentencing, a couple of the candidates were confused in their answers and conflated various policies and methods. However, it deeply disquiets me that only Dan McElhatton seemed to question at all the utility and basic fairness of these methods. The future DA must be scrupulously careful to balance cutting-edge social science methods with a commitment to basic constitutional rights, which include punishing people for the crime they commit, not who they are. I would like to hear a pledge that only evidence of past criminal activity and/or rehabilitation be used, and not factors related to age, race, gender, or economic background.

7. Hey, Seth promised to prosecute the priests.

YPP commenter Portia has noted that, whatever your take on the income stuff in Seth Williams’ case, Judge Tereshsko was still wrong, because of the holding in the case of my bff Greg Paulmier, which said you can amend your statement of financial interests. It is yet another indicator of just how ridiculous this decision was, and it played a big role in the oral arguments before the Commonwealth Court today.

On the income though, after some digging, I thought I would point out the following:

From candidate Michael Nutter’s expenditure reports, we see the following payments made in 2006 to... Michael Nutter. (Info on page 309 of a 389 PDF.)

1) $2939.17, 6/19/2006, Travel Expense.
2) $126.07, 9/28/2006, Reimbursement- Supplies

So, Mike Nutter, like many, many candidates, had thousands of dollars of ‘expenses’ that were reimbursed.

Guess what else we found? Michael Nutter’s Statement of Financial Interests (sorry it is upside down):

Nutter SFI 2007 (2)(3)

And, under sources of income, did Nutter list those reimbursements as expenses? Of course not.

In other words, as we await a ruling that I believe will be favorable to Seth (as does the Inquirer), it is worth remembering that Mike Nutter, someone who everyone would agree is smart and is generally into that whole campaign finance law, would have been kicked off the ballot had he been challenged.

I asked the Mayor's office to comment. They declined, citing that the case was ongoing.

1) In the race for Controller, Brett Mandel picks up some institutional support:

Upstart candidate Brett Mandel announced yesterday that he has the backing of four local elected officials in his uphill campaign to unseat Philadelphia City Controller Alan Butkovitz.

State Sen. Larry Farnese, State Reps. Tony Payton and Kathy Manderino, and City Councilman Frank DiCicco, Mandel said, are backing him in the May 19 Democratic primary.

The endorsements from the four Democrats are significant in that Mandel's candidacy is tantamount to taking on the political establishment.

Butkovitz, elected controller in 2005, is a ward leader who as an incumbent is virtually guaranteed the backing of the Democratic City Committee.

He's also an ally of Local 98 of the electricians union, which has access to a wealth of political funds and election-day foot soldiers.

2) Seth Williams' appeal will be heard this morning:

Argument scheduled for 4/8/09 @ 11:00a.m. (Panel) in the En Banc Crtrm. No. 1, 9th Fl., Widner Bldg. 1339 Chestnut St., One S. Penn Sq., Phila.

3) Bob Brady is putting some serious discipline on the party's judicial selection process. It has thus far meant that a really good candidate- Leon King- has withdrawn, in hopes of getting a party endorsement in the future.

If Brady wants to enforce discipline, all the power to him. The ridiculous process of 'consultants' like John Sabatina and the late Carol Campbell earning tens of thousands of dollars for judicial elections is ridiculous. It forces more and more money into a system that shouldn't have money in it begin with.

However, if he is serious about this level party discipline, and it will basically mean an automatic win for a judge, he should also be totally open and clear about the process by which people get the endorsement of the party, and it should be a much higher standard than "servicing the party."

In a spirited and competitive contest that featured substantive addresses and answers to tough questions (see: www.PhillyForChange.com), Seth Williams last night won Philly For Change's District Attorney endorsement vote, getting 70% of the ballots cast. Candidates must get at least 60% of ballots in order for PFC to issue an endorsement. We're very pleased to be able make an endorsement, and to endorse Seth, in this critical and competitive race.

Seth Williams is a longtime member of Philly For Change, who has made regular appearances at meetups over the years, not just at those where he was scheduled to speak. This is his second PFC endorsement.