EDITORIAL: CITY'S LOITERING LAW DIDN'T DESERVE VETO

Mayor Sue Bauman's veto of the city's loitering ordinance does not
make sense as a matter of law or practicality. The City Council
should override her veto and keep a legitimate drug-fighting tool in
place.

Bauman vetoed the loitering ordinance after the council voted, 11-7,
to make the 5-year-old law permanent. The mayor said she exercised
her veto rights because the law has not curtailed open-air drug
dealing, and has disproportionately affected blacks and other
minorities.

Let's start with Bauman's belief that the law hasn't worked. It's
hard to imagine that any single law or action would curb open-air
drug sales, but the loitering ordinance appears to have made a dent.
The latest police department report shows that 77 citations were
issued in 2001, up from 54 in 2000. A good deal of the time the
loitering citation led to other charges, often drug-or
weapons-related.

In her veto message, Bauman said "an extraordinary number of
citations are issued to people of color," exceeding their percentage
in Madison and even in the neighborhoods where citations are issued.

To an extent, that's true. The bulk of the citations (67 percent)
were issued to young, black males. However, Bauman overlooks the fact
that very few of the people issued citations - white or black, male
or female - actually lived in the neighborhood where they were
stopped by police. Only seven of 77 people who were issued loitering
citations actually lived in that neighborhood. Barely half claimed to
live in the city of Madison. More than four-fifths (81 percent) had a
history of violence, drug use or both. For only five of the 77 was
the loitering citation their first contact with Madison police. The
remaining 72 had a total of 1,671 contacts with the cops, an average
of 23 each. The police department is not issuing citations to Scouts
selling cookies.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, Acting City Attorney Larry O'Brien made
it clear the ordinance is constitutional and could withstand a court
challenge. He said the law is "clearly neutral on its face" and was
drafted to avoid arbitrary enforcement. But what about the
disproportionate number of blacks cited? "The U.S. Supreme Court has
made it clear that a racially disproportionate impact does not render
official action unconstitutional," O'Brien wrote. That may be
especially true in Madison, given the council's careful attention to
the wording of the ordinance and how it's enforced.

This ordinance is fair, has shown results and appears to be welcomed
by people in neighborhoods preyed upon by drug dealers. The council
should override Bauman's veto.