A Rising Democratic Star Just Became a New Anti–Death Penalty Hero
When the history of America's long journey toward the abolition of capital punishment is written, it will be studded with the names of people who, in their time, took little-noticed decisions to oppose the death penalty. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear will likely be one of those people.
Beshear, a rising star in the Democratic Party, is not a prominent and outspoken abolitionist. In fact, during an October 2023 gubernatorial debate with his Republican opponent, Beshear explained that there are 'some crimes so terrible and some people so dangerous that I do believe this law needs to continue to be on the books.'
With statements like that, Beshear certainly does not sound like a candidate for the abolitionist Hall of Fame. But consider what he did late last month, when he refused to authorize the execution of Ralph Baze, who was convicted of murdering two police officers and would later be the lead plaintiff in an unsuccessful constitutional challenge to lethal injection.
Beshear's refusal was enormously significant in forestalling a real step backward for the abolitionist movement.
And, while it is by no means the death penalty capital of the United States, the fate of capital punishment may be determined in places like Kentucky, places I call death penalty 'swing states,' and not just in states with many executions like Texas, Oklahoma, or Alabama.
A death penalty swing state is one in which the death penalty remains an authorized punishment, but in which executions seldom occur and death sentences are seldom handed down. As the Death Penalty Information Center notes, 'Although the United States is considered a death penalty country, executions are rare or non-existent in most of the nation.'
Right now, there are 10 death penalty states in which no one has been executed in the past 10 years. Kentucky is one of those states, along with California, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Three other death penalty states—Arkansas, Nebraska, and Ohio—have not carried out an execution in the past five years.
The reasons why states retain the death penalty but don't use it are quite varied. Some states stop executing because of the difficulty of obtaining the drugs needed to carry out lethal injection or problems they've encountered in the administration of capital punishment. In other states, governors have declared a moratorium on executions.
Still others seem disinclined to go forward with executions but have not mustered the political momentum to take the death penalty off the books. For example, Kansas has not executed anyone in almost 50 years; Wyoming has not done so since 1992.
Kentucky carried out its last execution in November 2008 when Marco Allen Chapman was put to death for the gruesome murder of two children and the rape of their mother. All told, the Bluegrass State has executed only three people in the past half-century.
Its death penalty history dates back to 1780, before it was granted statehood, when it carried out its first judicially authorized execution. Since then, Kentucky has gone on to set the record for the most executions in a single day. On July 13, 1928, it used the electric chair to put seven men to death, one after the other.
Eight years later, it was the site of this nation's last public execution.
In 1998, though, the state became the first to enact a Racial Justice Act. That act authorizes judges in capital cases to consider whether racial bias played a role in any decision to seek, or impose, the death penalty. Kentucky has not carried out an execution in more than a decade because of problems with its lethal injection protocol and various legal challenges to it. The DPIC reports that 'in 2006, death-sentenced prisoners filed a lawsuit alleging the execution protocol had not followed the proper administrative rulemaking process.' Since then, legal challenges have focused on the state's 'failure to provide a single-drug lethal injection option, inadequate protections against executing people with intellectual disability, and inadequate protections against executing those considered insane.'
In 2019, a judge found the state's execution protocol to be 'unconstitutional and invalid,' and issued an injunction. But that did not stop Kentucky's Republican Attorney General Russell Coleman from calling on the governor last month to set an execution date for Baze.
Coleman has been fighting to restart executions since he took office. His request put the progressive governor in a difficult spot in deep-red Kentucky.
But Beshear held firm and kept his state in the group of death penalty swing states. He told the AG that he would not authorize Baze's execution because of continuing problems and unresolved legal issues with the state's execution protocol. As recently as April of this year, a Kentucky trial judge found that the state still had not fixed those problems.
In response to Coleman's request, the governor would not jump the gun just to score political points. He pointed out that Kentucky 'does not currently have, nor can it obtain, the drugs necessary to carry out lethal injection executions.'
So, Kentucky remains a place with 25 men on death row. The last death sentence handed down in the state was in 2014.
States that move from the group that has not executed anyone in a long time to actually executing set an unfortunate example for other swing states that may encourage them to follow suit. We know that imitation is an important mechanism for the spread of policies or state actions, and this is as true in the realm of the death penalty as in any other area.
As I wrote previously, 'Political leaders in one place scan the horizon looking to other places to see [what is happening] and to learn what works and what doesn't. The federal system provides the framework within which this learning and borrowing can occur.'
That neighboring Indiana recently broke from the group of death penalty swing states after having not carried out an execution in 15 years makes Beshear's refusal to issue a death warrant all the more significant. It helps avoid a kind of domino effect involving other swing states, including Ohio to the north and Pennsylvania to the northeast.
Beshear is an example of a political leader for whom the abstract belief that some people may deserve death as a punishment for their crimes gives way to a realistic assessment of the way the death penalty works, or does not work, in practice. It is that assessment that has fueled the substantial progress that abolitionists have made in changing the national conversation about capital punishment.
For his refusal to let Kentucky restart what the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun once called 'the machinery of death' and for the political courage it took to do that, Andy Beshear may rightly be called an anti–death penalty hero.
Solve the daily Crossword

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats wrestle with shutdown strategy
Two GOP senators — Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine and another senior appropriator, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski — voted against Trump's rescissions package. Several more voted 'yes' but still spoke critically of the Trump administration's unwillingness to detail specific accounts that will be cut, as well as the chilling effect the Republican clawbacks could have on bipartisan funding negotiations. After Vought told reporters Thursday that 'the appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,' Collins urged fellow appropriators that 'the best way for us to counter what has been said by the OMB director is to continue to work in a bipartisan way. And I hope that we are going to do so.' But Democrats need more than just Collins to come to the defense of Congress' funding prerogative. 'We've got to work to make sure that there are several others on the other side of the aisle who have the stomach and the strength and the spine to stand up and say: 'No, don't take it away from the Congress. It's our job,'' Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the House's top Democratic appropriator, told reporters Thursday night before the House passed the package to nix $9 billion. Democrats also need to help boost the legal fights against Trump's funding moves, DeLauro added, as more than 100 of those lawsuits play out in courtrooms throughout the country. As Democrats hope for a critical mass of Republicans willing to defy Trump, some are testing out a more hardline position of warning Republicans they could have to go at it alone in a funding fight this fall. In a joint statement after House Republicans cleared Trump's recessions package just after midnight Friday, the House's top three Democrats fired off a warning shot that pinned the onus on Republicans to avoid a funding lapse in the coming months. 'Tonight's vote, coming hours after the Trump White House abandoned the bipartisan appropriations process, makes it clear that House Republicans are determined to march this country toward a painful government shutdown later this year,' said Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Kathrine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. And Schumer said in a letter to his caucus earlier this month that Republicans 'know it is absurd' to count on Democrats supporting the pursuit of fiscal 2026 funding bills if the GOP votes along party lines to delete existing funding or pile on more cash. That's what Republicans did in boosting military and border security budgets through their tax and spending megabill Trump signed on July 4. But Schumer also stopped short of delivering a clear threat ahead of the September shutdown deadline. And Democrats aren't yet willing to give up on funding negotiations with their GOP colleagues, even after Republicans ignored their warnings about eroding trust in bipartisan talks by backing the clawbacks package last week. In fact, Democratic appropriators are largely leaning in, especially in the Senate, where GOP leaders plan to bring bipartisan funding measures to the floor as soon as this week. 'I think the most important thing for us to do is to continue to move the appropriations process as expeditiously as we can, to try and find bipartisan agreement,' Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a top appropriator, said in an interview, 'because it's in everybody's interest to do this and to move forward.' Cassandra Dumay and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump is racking up GOP wins no one else could. What do Never Trumpers say now?
For all the hand-wringing over Donald Trump in the past decade, I think his detractors on the right need to take a moment and consider what this president has accomplished. He'll destroy the Republican Party. He'll end democracy. He's not a conservative. He's a bad guy who can't be trusted. For all the hand-wringing over Donald Trump in the past decade, I think his detractors on the right need to take a moment and consider what this president has accomplished. He's racking up huge conservative wins that no other Republican president in modern history has come close to matching. What others only talked about, Trump is doing. I'll walk you through some of the biggest wins. Trump assassination attempt: Trump almost died a year ago. That moment changed the direction of America. | Opinion Taxpayers are now free from funding liberal NPR. Hallelujah. I've advocated for ending taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS for years. So it came as welcome news that Congress last week finally rescinded funding for these progressive outlets. From the start of his second term, Trump made it clear this was a priority for him. And he worked with the slim GOP majority in Congress to make it happen. House Republicans made it official on July 18, voting to axe about $1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates the funds to stations across the country. 'This vote is an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions, and an act of Congress that disregards the public will,' Katherine Maher, president and CEO of NPR, complained. Here's the thing. If the stations are so beloved by their local communities, then local residents and businesses are more than welcome to donate to the cause. NPR has a right to exist. That doesn't mean it has a right to my tax dollars. | Opinion But there is not a First Amendment requirement for the government (taxpayers) to fund any specific outlet – especially one that so glaringly ignores the perspectives of half the country. This has been a purported Republican goal for years, but squishy conservatives facing reelection didn't want to be the ones to pull the plug on Big Bird. In fact, according to PBS, every Republican administration (save for Gerald Ford) has sought to cut funding for CPB since its inception in 1967. Only Trump succeeded. Finally! Penn will erase trans athlete's records. But are they just biding time? | Opinion Trump is dismantling the Education Department, like Reagan wanted to do As he promised, Trump is also working to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, a behemoth of bureaucracy that has done nothing to improve education in the country. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court greenlighted his efforts to slash the department's workforce in half, an action that began in March with an executive order. Trump celebrated the victory on social media, saying his administration can follow through with his goal of giving 'the Power back to the PEOPLE' in regard to education. Betsy DeVos, who served as education secretary during Trump's first term, has told me that she is 100% on board with closing the Education Department and empowering the states, which should be the level of government that oversees public schools. Much of the work the department does could easily transfer to other branches of government, as it was done before the Education Department's creation in 1979 under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Since that time, Republicans have regularly advocated for doing away with the department. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. President Ronald Reagan, the darling of conservatives, talked about doing this in the 1980s, although he didn't follow through. In 1996, the Republican Party platform included abolishing the department and ending 'federal meddling in our schools' and promoting school choice. Yet, it took Trump to get the job done. He's also taken a strong lead in expanding education options for families. The 'big, beautiful bill' he just signed into law creates the first federal private school choice tax credit program. Education system is failing: Trump trusts parents to know what's best for their kids. What a concept! | Opinion As the American Enterprise Institute's Nat Malkus told CNN, 'Trump's big changes in education are the federal retreat many conservatives have long called for, with some new attacks added in for good measure.' And don't forget about Roe v. Wade Last but not least, Trump is the one to thank for the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Since 1973, when the Supreme Court fashioned a constitutional 'right' to abortion, conservatives had fought hard to overturn it. During his first term, Trump had the exceptional opportunity to appoint three Supreme Court justices, which effectively sealed the court's conservative majority for years to come. His excellent choices of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett paved the way for the groundbreaking decision that gave abortion regulation back to the states, where it belongs. The Never Trumpers have told us Trump is bad news for the Republican Party. Those of us who line up on the right can't look at these significant conservative wins, however, and not be thoroughly impressed. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.


Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Threatens Washington Commanders' RFK Stadium Deal Over Team Name
'Our country has far bigger problems! FOCUS on them, not nonsense,' Donald Trump tweeted in 2013. Then-President Barack Obama, Trump said, 'should not be telling' Washington, D.C.'s NFL team 'to change their name.' But now, there is a need to focus on the nonsense, it seems. As President Trump continues to try to turn attention away from scrutinizing his relationship with the late alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, he posted twice on his Truth Social platform on Sunday about the name of the football franchise in the nation's capital as well as that of the MLB team in Cleveland, Ohio. 'The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team,' he posted. 'There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' In a follow-up, Trump added: 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington. The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone. Cleveland should do the same with the Cleveland Indians. The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!' (Dolan, a Republican who served five years in the Ohio House of Representatives and eight years in the state senate and whose father purchased the Cleveland baseball team in 2000, ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2022 and 2024.) Amid widespread concern about social injustices across the U.S. in 2020, both the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians decided to change their controversial names out of respect for Native Americans. Washington became the Washington Football Team that year, and in 2022 adopted the name the Washington Commanders, while the Cleveland Indians transitioned to its current name, the Cleveland Guardians, in 2021. Read More: A Linguist's Analysis of the Redskins Defense Trump was never a fan of the name changes, tweeting in 2020: 'They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness, but now the Washington Redskins & Cleveland Indians, two fabled sports franchises, look like they are going to be changing their names in order to be politically correct. Indians, like Elizabeth Warren, must be very angry right now!' (Sen. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has been mocked by Trump and other Republicans for her claims of Cherokee ancestry.) Trump's urging of the sports organizations to reverse their rebrandings comes as his second-term Administration has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in both the public and private sector. Speaking to reporters Sunday, Guardians' president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti said, 'We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last 4 years and are excited about the future.' The Commanders did not immediately issue a statement, but earlier this year, controlling owner Josh Harris said his team had no plans to change its name again. 'In this building, the name Commanders means something,' Harris said during a February press conference. 'It's about players who love football, are great at football, hit hard, mentally tough, great teammates.' It's unclear whether Trump has the authority to upend a deal that the Commanders and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced in April to return the team in 2030 to its former home at the capital's Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium after having moved to Landover, Md., in 1997. Amid years of discussions about redeveloping the storied-but-defunct sports and events campus, Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, signed into law in January a bill that transferred the land of the RFK Stadium from federal to local control for the next 99 years. Still, earlier this month, as some members of the D.C. Council expressed skepticism about the timeline and financing of the mayor's deal with the Commanders, Trump suggested he could intervene if the council doesn't approve it. 'It's a very important piece of property. It's a great piece of property,' Trump said, referring to the RFK Stadium site, 'You know, ultimately we control that. The federal government ultimately controls it, so we'll see what happens.'