The Death Penalty and the 2012 Presidential Election

If current trends continue, next year’s presidential race promises to be a close one.  The president’s natural advantages of incumbency likely will be offset by a weak economy and low public approval ratings, thereby creating an opening for a strong challenger.

Most agree that the focus will be on a handful of battleground states.  Among these states could be several in the Midwest -– Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and perhaps even my home state of Minnesota.

There is something else distinctive about the “purple” states I’ve listed above:  All but Ohio have abolished the death penalty.  And, in Ohio, there is a strong tradition of clemency granted to those on death row, the chief justice of the state supreme court has called for a review of the administration of the death penalty, public opposition is growing, and only half a dozen executions are scheduled for all of 2012 (each of which is likely to draw considerable and controversial attention in Ohio).

Now in the typical presidential race, the death penalty never becomes a salient issue or provides a distinctive basis for choosing between the candidates.  There are very few federal death penalty statutes and very few federal death penalty sentences.  There have been only three federal executions since 2001 and none since 2003.  Moreover, not since Michael Dukakis in 1988 has any Democratic nominee for president opposed the death penalty, thus taking the issue off the table.

Election Year 2012 could be different –- not because a majority of Americans are opposed to the death penalty (that sadly is not yet true) or even because President Obama and his eventual Republican challenger will have meaningfully contrasting positions on federal executions.  Instead, as a more subtle and sub-surface factor, an aggressively pro-death penalty candidate, like Texas Governor Rick Perry, could face a small but steady erosion of support in key states, perhaps just enough to tip the election to President Obama.

Consider states like Iowa and Minnesota, in each of which I’ve spent about a decade of my adult life.  Neither state is a high crime state, despite long since have abandoned executions as a form of punishment.  While Republicans in each state occasionally make noises about restoring the death penalty, it tends to be a rhetorical device to signal toughness on crime, not a serious policy proposal.  With some exceptions, Iowans and Minnesotans across the political spectrum are more or less satisfied not to have a death penalty and pleased that their state governments are not spending tens of millions on death penalty cases (in contrast with states like Texas and Illinois).

Proudly pointing to hundreds of executions in one’s home state may be an applause line before a partisan Republican audience, especially in the South.  But in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio, on which the presidential election is likely to hinge, that record induces queasiness in a not-insignificant number of Republicans and even more Independents.

First, Republican and Republican-leaning voters, especially in the upper Midwest, are not uniformly in favor of the death penalty.  Republicans and Independent from Catholic and other perspectives often question or reject the death penalty as a morally legitimate tool of criminal justice.  To be sure, given his unacceptable views on protection of life for the unborn, President Obama is unlikely to be the beneficiary of Catholic and other pro-life voters who are uneasy with an aggressively pro-death-penalty Republican nominee.  But some of these voters might simply withhold support from a Republican candidate who is too readily and energetically associated with executions.

Second, in tight budgetary times, Independents who otherwise would trend Republican might look askance at a candidate who has made the financially foolish decision to spend millions of dollars on each execution, rather than choosing to devote those increasingly precious dollars to hiring more police officers, creating alternative juvenile sentencing schemes, etc.

Finally, given that at least one innocent person likely has been executed in Texas under Governor Perry’s watch (here and here), his denial that he has lost any sleep or struggled over these cases is disconcerting.  If he becomes the Republican presidential nominee, we may expect powerful film documentaries and a plethora of reports about "Texas Justice" in death penalty cases to hound the candidate throughout the fall.

To be sure, given that the number of lives taken by the death penalty in the United States (even including Texas) remains a tiny, tiny percentage of those taken each year by abortion, protection of life for the unborn remains a much more pressing question in the national forum.  Still, the prospect of even a small slippage of the Republican voter base in the Midwest for a candidate seen as overly aggressive and unduly callous about dealing death should prompt careful consideration, thoughtful evaluation, and soul-searching by both the candidates and voters in the upcoming Republican primaries.

Greg Sisk