EDITORIAL: Will Kamala Harris ever have to defend her record?

Kamala Harris continues to dodge and weave to avoid answering challenging questions about her record and agenda. It’s a cynical strategy and an affront to American voters, but so far it’s been an effective means of preserving the shine on her brand new candidacy.

But let’s not forget that the vice president has been tied to President Joe Biden’s hip for the past 42 months. Ms. Harris can’t run from the raging inflation and open borders triggered by this administration’s economic and immigration policies. She can’t hide from the White House’s reluctance to support this nation’s most reliable and trusted ally in the Middle East. She can’t deflect responsibility for the soaring energy costs that are a byproduct of extreme environmentalism.

Ms. Harris also can’t distance herself from a long record of embracing the power of the state at the expense of the protections guaranteed citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For instance, Ms. Harris supports an effort by Senate Democrats to rewrite the First Amendment to allow the federal government to regulate certain political speech. She has previously argued that the Second Amendment does not bestow upon Americans the right to own firearms for personal protection. As attorney general of California, Ms. Harris joined an amicus brief arguing that the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable” intrusions didn’t apply to warrantless searches of motel guest records.

In that same capacity, Ms. Harris sided with the government in a Sixth Amendment case in Wisconsin that limited the property rights of a family seeking to build on its own land. She criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling that executive branch administrative courts don’t trump Seventh Amendment protections regarding the right to a jury trial. Like most progressive Democrats, she’s hardly a fan of the Tenth Amendment’s insistence that the Constitution imposes limits on federal power.

Ms. Harris has also said she is “open” to packing the Supreme Court. She has embraced compulsory unionism for workers, favors eliminating the Senate filibuster to advance controversial Democratic objectives and wants to make Washington, D.C., the 51st state. The vice president in 2020 proposed that the federal government should provide Americans with a “universal basic income” of $2,000 a month.

Ms. Harris is entitled to her personal beliefs, of course. The question is whether she would embrace these positions —many of which are quite radical — as president of the United States. And whether anybody will get an opportunity to ask her about it before Nov. 5.