Laws I'd change in office.
A running list — the things I'd push to change if I held the office. Argued the house way: the facts are cited so you can check them, the position is labeled as mine, and the strongest objection stays on the page. You can read it and still disagree. That's allowed here.
Not legal advice; general framing and policy opinion only. The list grows.
Plank №1 · Policing
Police discretion ends where public funding begins.
The position, plainly: if an officer takes public money, responding is not optional. A publicly funded officer should not have the discretion to simply not come — and the doctrine that says no one is owed a response should go.
What the law actually says (cited)
Right now, the courts hold the opposite of most people's intuition: there is no constitutional duty for police to protect a specific person, even with a court order and clear evidence.
• Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) — a restraining order said police "shall" arrest; they didn't act on repeated calls; her three children were murdered. No enforceable right to enforcement.
• DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) — no affirmative duty to protect an individual from private violence (an intruder is a private actor).
• Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1981) — intruders, repeated 911 calls, no response, the attack proceeded. No duty owed to the individual.
The position (opinion — clearly labeled)
⚑ Policy position · mine, not a statement of current lawA badge and a salary paid by the public are a contract with the public. "Discretion" should cover how to respond — triage, tactics, sequencing — never whether a publicly funded force answers at all. Accepting the funding should mean accepting an enforceable duty to respond; the Castle Rock / DeShaney "no duty" line is the law I'd change.
The honest other side (because we don't dunk)
The counterargument is real: resources are finite. Triage, scarce staffing, officer safety, and genuine on-scene judgment are necessary, not corruption — and a rule of "respond to everything, instantly" is impossible and could be weaponized against departments for good-faith calls. So the reform has to target willful or total non-response and the no-duty doctrine — not the slow night, the hard choice, or the real shortage. Discretion in method, yes; immunity from answering, no.
What would actually fix it
A statutory duty to respond with published, documented triage standards; removal of the immunity shield for willful non-response; a real civil remedy for the person left unanswered; and dispatch/body-cam logging so "we were overwhelmed" is checkable rather than assumed. The record is the arbiter — make non-response leave a paper trail, and discretion stops being a place to hide.
Plank №2 · Disability rights
Give the ADA teeth.
The position, plainly: the Americans with Disabilities Act is a great promise with a weak enforcer. Thirty-five years on, it still mostly opens doors after the fact and rarely costs anyone anything to keep them shut. Clarify it; arm it.
What the law actually says (cited)
For a public-facing business (Title III), when an individual sues and wins, federal law gives a court order to fix the barrier and attorney’s fees — but no damages to the person who was shut out. Enforcement is largely complaint-driven (someone disabled has to notice, file, and litigate), and compliance turns on soft qualifiers — “readily achievable,” “reasonable accommodation,” “undue hardship” — that can swallow the rule.
• 42 U.S.C. §12188 — Title III remedies: injunctive relief + fees, not individual damages. • Plain-English version + how to file: Your ADA Rights.
The position (opinion — clearly labeled)
⚑ Policy position · mine, not a statement of current lawGive it teeth: (1) real, escalating penalties for ignoring a known, fixable barrier; (2) damages for the person who was excluded — not only an order to fix it next time; (3) proactive auditing by the enforcer instead of waiting for a disabled person to become a plaintiff; (4) tighten the loophole words so “reasonable” and “undue” can’t be used to mean “later, or never.” Access is a right, not a favor — and a right with no cost to break is a suggestion.
The honest other side (because we don't dunk)
“Drive-by” ADA lawsuits are a real abuse: a handful of repeat plaintiffs file in bulk chasing attorney’s fees, and a small business can get hit for an honest, fixable lapse. So teeth have to distinguish genuine, willful exclusion from a good-faith owner who fixes it fast — or the cure becomes its own racket.
What would actually fix it
Damages tied to actual remediation and willfulness (fix it fast and in good faith, owe little; ignore it, owe more); a short, documented cure window before damages attach; proactive DOJ audits of the worst offenders; plain, published standards (including web accessibility / WCAG); and a compliance fund for small business — so access is the default, not a gotcha. Make keeping the door open cheaper than keeping it shut.