2016 presidential candidates on stop and frisk

2016 Presidential Election
Date: November 8, 2016

Candidates
Winner: Donald Trump (R)
Hillary Clinton (D) • Jill Stein (G) • Gary Johnson (L) • Vice presidential candidates

Election coverage
Important dates • Nominating process • Ballotpedia's 2016 Battleground Poll • Polls • Debates • Presidential election by state • Ratings and scorecards

Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage
2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016

Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
Click here to learn more.

For information about crime and justice under the Trump administration, click here.

This page was current as of the 2016 election.

The debate over stop-and-frisk policing reached the national stage on September 26, 2016, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussed its efficacy and constitutionality during the first presidential debate. The policing tactic, which first gained attention in the 1960s, generally involves law enforcement stopping, questioning, and potentially frisking pedestrians on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Supporters of stop-and-frisk policing point to declining crime rates as evidence that the tactic improves safety. Its opponents argue that crime rates were already in decline and that the policy unconstitutionally targets young black and Latino men.^[1]^[2]

Read below what the 2016 candidates and their respective party platforms said about stop-and-frisk policing.

Interested in reading more about the 2016 candidates' stances on related issues? Ballotpedia also covered what the candidates said about the Constitution, gun control, the Black Lives Matter movement, and crime and justice.

OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS
Hillary Clinton (D) called stop-and-frisk policing "ineffective" and "unconstitutional," and proposed that pedestrian stops should be based on probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion.
Donald Trump (R) said that stop-and-frisk policing tactics "had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City" and advocated its use in Chicago.
Jill Stein (G) called stop-and-frisk policing "a flagrant case of racial profiling" and ineffective.
Gary Johnson (L) described stop-and-frisk policing as "civil liberties out the window."

Democratic candidate

Hillary Clinton

During the first presidential debate on September 26, 2016, Hillary Clinton called stop-and-frisk policing "ineffective." She said, "There are the right ways of doing it [keeping people safe], and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do."^[3]
During a campaign event on gun violence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in April 2016, Clinton expressed skepticism of stop-and-frisk tactics. “I do think the evidence people use to justify stop-and-frisk doesn’t hold up under scrutiny," she said. Clinton added that police "should be looking for probable cause.” She suggested that stop-and-frisk policies could continue in a limited form under her criminal justice plan. “Some people will be stopped, but it will not be the kind of wholesale stopping you have seen in too many places," she said.^[4]
Clinton spoke at the National Bar Association’s commemoration of the Montgomery Bus Boycott on January 31, 2016, where she said that one of the courageous acts of the late U.S. Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) was his fight against stop-and-frisk policing in the 1960s.^[5]
Read more of Hillary Clinton's public statements on crime and justice.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform on crime and justice

“

Reforming our Criminal Justice System

Democrats are committed to reforming our criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration. Something is profoundly wrong when almost a quarter of the world’s prison population is in the United States, even though our country has less than five percent of the world’s population. We will reform mandatory minimum sentences and close private prisons and detention centers. Research and evidence, rather than slogans and sound bites, must guide criminal justice policies.

We will rebuild the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Across the country, there are police officers inspiring trust and confidence, honorably doing their duty, deploying creative and effective strategies, and demonstrating that it is possible to prevent crime without relying on unnecessary force. They deserve our respect and support, and we should learn from those examples and build on what works.

We will work with police chiefs to invest in training for officers on issues such as de-escalation and the creation of national guidelines for the appropriate use of force. We will encourage better police-community relations, require the use of body cameras, and stop the use of weapons of war that have no place in our communities. We will end racial profiling that targets individuals solely on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, which is un-American and counterproductive. We should report national data on policing strategies and provide greater transparency and accountability. We will require the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings, and we will support states and localities who help make those investigations and prosecutions more transparent, including through reforming the grand jury process. We will assist states in providing a system of public defense that is adequately resourced and which meets American Bar Association standards. And we will reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for law enforcement to “police for a profit.”

Instead of investing in more jails and incarceration, we need to invest more in jobs and education, and end the school-to-prison pipeline. We will remove barriers to help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter society by “banning the box,” expanding reentry programs, and restoring voting rights. We think the next President should take executive action to ban the box for federal employers and contractors, so applicants have an opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications before being asked about their criminal records.

The 'war on drugs' has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. Whenever possible, Democrats will prioritize prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder.

We will build on effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration.

Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1" federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization. We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize it or provide access to medical marijuana should be able to do so. We support policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty. And we recognize our current marijuana laws have had an unacceptable disparate impact in terms of arrest rates for African Americans that far outstrip arrest rates for whites, despite similar usage rates.

We will abolish the death penalty, which has proven to be a cruel and unusual form of punishment. It has no place in the United States of America. The application of the death penalty is arbitrary and unjust. The cost to taxpayers far exceeds those of life imprisonment. It does not deter crime. And, exonerations show a dangerous lack of reliability for what is an irreversible punishment.

We have been inspired by the movements for criminal justice that directly address the discriminatory treatment of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians to rebuild trust in the criminal justice system.^[6]^[7]

”

Republican candidate

Donald Trump

During the first presidential debate on September 26, 2016, Donald Trump was asked what he would do to improve race relations in the United States. He said that "law and order" was necessary and suggested stop-and-frisk tactics could be one method to reduce crime in cities like Chicago. When moderator Lester Holt said that the policy had been ruled unconstitutional, Trump rejected this assertion, saying the case "would have won on appeal." He later criticized Hillary Clinton for her opposition to stop-and-frisk tactics. "I think maybe there's a political reason why you can't say it, but I really don't believe -- in New York City, stop-and-frisk, we had 2,200 murders, and stop-and-frisk brought it down to 500 murders. Five hundred murders is a lot of murders. It's hard to believe, 500 is like supposed to be good? But we went from 2,200 to 500. And it was continued on by Mayor Bloomberg. And it was terminated by current mayor. But stop-and- frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City. Tremendous beyond belief. So when you say it has no impact, it really did. It had a very, very big impact," he said.^[8]

In a Fox News interview on September 21, 2016, Trump responded to a question about what he would do to cut down on inner-city crime by advocating the use of stop-and-frisk policing. He said, “I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well. And you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically. You understand. You have to have – in my opinion, I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk, in New York City, it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor. But New York City was incredible the way that worked. So I think that would be one step you could do.” A federal judge ruled stop-and-frisk unconstitutional in 2013.^[9] The next day, Trump clarified that he was talking specifically about the city of Chicago, telling "Fox and Friends," "Chicago is out of control, and I was really referring to Chicago with stop-and-frisk. They asked me about Chicago, and I was talking about stop-and-frisk for Chicago."^[10]

Trump discussed his approach to crime control during an appearance before the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune on June 29, 2015. When he was asked to clarify what "being tough" on crime consisted of, Trump said, "You have to be tough. It means going in there, and just, you've gotta be tough. And you maybe have to go after stop-and-frisk stuff, which by the way it's going up in New York without the stop-and-frisk. You may have to go there in—you need tough cookies. These are tough kids. These are not babies. These are tough, tough kids. If they saw you walking down the street, they wouldn't give a damn about you. You gotta be tough. You can't be so gentle with these people."^[11]
Read more of Donald Trump's public statements on crime and justice.

The 2016 Republican Party Platform on crime and justice

“

Ensuring Safe Neighborhoods: Criminal Justice and Prison Reform

The men and women of law enforcement — whether patrolling our neighborhoods or our borders, fighting organized crime or guarding against domestic terror — deserve our gratitude and support. Their jobs are never easy, especially in crisis situations, and should not be made more difficult by politicized second-guessing from federal officials. The current Administration’s lack of respect for them, from White House intervention in local arrests to the Attorney General’s present campaign of harassment against police forces around the country, has been unprecedented. With all Americans, we mourn those whom we have lost to violence and hatred. To honor their sacrifice, we recommit ourselves, as individuals and as a party, to the rule of law and the pursuit of justice.

The conduct of the Department of Justice has included refusal to enforce laws, stonewalling congressional committees, destroying evidence, reckless dealing with firearms that led to several deaths on both sides of our border, and defying a citation for contempt. It has urged leniency for rioters while turning a blind eye to mob attacks on peaceful citizens exercising their political rights. A new administration must ensure the immediate dismissal and, where appropriate, prosecution of any Department officials who have violated their oath of office.

The next president must restore the public’s trust in law enforcement and civil order by first adhering to the rule of law himself. Additionally, the next president must not sow seeds of division and distrust between the police and the people they have sworn to serve and protect. The Republican Party, a party of law and order, must make clear in words and action that every human life matters. Two grave problems undermine the rule of law on the federal level: Over-criminalization and over-federalization. In the first case, Congress and federal agencies have increased the number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code from 3,000 in the early 1980s to more than 4,500 today. That does not include an estimated 300,000 regulations containing criminal penalties. No one, including the Department of Justice, can come up with accurate numbers. That recklessness is bad enough when committed by Congress, but when it comes from the unelected bureaucrats of the federal agencies, it is intolerable. The power of career civil servants and political appointees to criminalize behavior is one of the worst violations of constitutional order perpetrated by the administrative state.

To deal with this morass, we urge caution in the creation of new “crimes” and a bipartisan presidential commission to purge the Code and the body of regulations of old “crimes.” We call for mens rea elements in the definition of any new crimes to protect Americans who, in violating a law, act unknowingly or without criminal intent. We urge Congress to codify the Common Law’s Rule of Lenity, which requires courts to interpret unclear statutes in favor of a defendant.

The over-federalization of criminal justice is one of many ways in which the government in Washington has intruded beyond its proper jurisdiction. The essential role of federal law enforcement personnel in protecting federal property and combating interstate crime should not be compromised by diversion to matters properly handled by state and local authorities.

We applaud the Republican Governors and legislators who have been implementing criminal justice reforms like those proposed by our 2012 platform. Along with diversion of first-time, nonviolent offenders to community sentencing, accountability courts, drug courts, veterans treatment courts, and guidance by faith-based institutions with proven track records of rehabilitation, our platform emphasized restorative justice to make the victim whole and put the offender on the right path. As variants of these reforms are undertaken in many states, we urge the Congress to learn from what works. In the past, judicial discretion about sentences led to serious mistakes concerning dangerous criminals. Mandatory minimum sentencing became an important tool for keeping them off the streets. Modifications to it should be targeted toward particular categories, especially nonviolent offenders and persons with drug, alcohol, or mental health issues, and should require disclosure by the courts of any judicial departure from the state’s sentencing requirements.

The constitutionality of the death penalty is firmly settled by its explicit mention in the Fifth Amendment. With the murder rate soaring in our great cities, we condemn the Supreme Court’s erosion of the right of the people to enact capital punishment in their states. In solidarity with those who protect us, we call for mandatory prison time for all assaults involving serious injury to law enforcement officers.

We call on the Congress to make the federal courts a model for the rest of the country in protecting the rights of victims and their families. They should be told all relevant information about their case, allowed to be present for its trial, assured a voice in sentencing and parole hearings, given access to social and legal services, and benefit from the Crime Victims Fund established under President Reagan for that sole purpose.

Public officials must regain control of their correctional institutions, some of which have become ethnic and racial battlegrounds. Persons jailed for whatever cause should be protected against cruel or degrading treatment by other inmates. Courts should not tie the hands of prison officials in dealing with these problems. We encourage states to offer opportunities for literacy and vocational education to prepare prisoners for release to the community. Breaking the cycle of crime begins with the children of those who are prisoners. Deprived of a parent through no fault of their own, youngsters from these families should be a special concern of our schools, social services, and religious institutions.

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography, which is closely linked to human trafficking.^[7]

”

—2016 Republican Party Platform^[12]

Green candidate

Jill Stein

Participating in Democracy Now's "Expand the Debate" program on September 27, 2016, Jill Stein responded to Donald Trump's support for stop-and-frisk policing in the first presidential debate. She said, "Stop-and-frisk was indeed unconstitutional and was indeed a flagrant case of racial profiling. It’s also true that it was not effective. In fact, crime rates were dropping in cities all over the country while they were also dropping in New York. So, to attribute that to stop-and-frisk, which was not causing the reduction around the country, is just wrong thinking."^[13]
Read more of Jill Stein's public statements on 2016 campaign issues.

The 2016 Green Party Platform on crime and justice

“

Reduce the prison population, invest in rehabilitation, and end the failed war on drugs.

The United States has the highest incarceration and recidivism rates of industrialized countries, while our nation's criminal justice system in general is too often inhumane, ineffective, and prohibitively expensive. With less than five percent of the world's population, the United States locks up nearly a quarter of the world's prisoners. Our law enforcement priorities place too much emphasis on drug-related and petty, non-violent crimes, and not enough on prosecution of corporate, white collar, and environmental crime. The majority of prisoners are serving terms for non-violent, minor property and drug addiction crimes, or violations of their conditions of parole or probation, while the poor, the under-educated and various racial and ethnic minorities are over-represented in the prison population.

The negative effects of imprisonment are far-reaching. Prisoners are isolated from their communities and often denied contact with the free world and the media. Access to educational and legal materials is in decline. Prison administrators wield total authority over their environments, diminishing procedural input from experts and censoring employee complaints.

Our priorities must include efforts to prevent violent crime and address the legitimate needs of victims, while addressing the socio-economic root causes of crime and practicing policies that prevent recidivism.

Greens oppose the increasingly widespread privatization of prisons. These prisons treat people as their product and provide far worse service than government-run prisons. Profits in privately run prisons are derived from understaffing, which severely reduces the acceptable care of inmates. Greens believe that greater, not lesser public input, oversight and control of prisons is the answer.

Greens call for an end to the 'war on drugs', legalization of drugs and for treating drug abuse as a health issue. The 'war on drugs' has been an ill conceived program that has wasted billions of dollars misdirecting law enforcement resources away from apprehending and prosecuting violent criminals, while crowding our prisons with non-violent drug offenders and disproportionately criminalizing youth of color.

Greens also call attention to the fact that more than forty percent of those 2.3 million locked down come from America's black one-eighth.

The Green Party recognizes that our nation's ostensibly color-blind systems of law enforcement and crime control, from police practices to prosecutorial prerogatives, to mandatory sentencing and zero-tolerance have effectively constituted an ubiquitous national policy of racially selective mass incarceration, a successor to Jim Crow as a means of social control, a policy that must be publicly discussed, widely recognized, and ultimately reversed. The nearly universal, though largely unspoken nature of this policy makes piecemeal reforms not accompanied by public discussion of the larger policy ineffective outside the context of a broad social movement.

GREEN SOLUTIONS

1. Alternatives to Incarceration

Encourage and support positive approaches to punishment that build hope, responsibility and a sense of belonging. Prisons should be the sentence of last resort, reserved for violent criminals. Those convicted of non-violent offenses should be handled by alternative, community-based programs including halfway houses, work-furlough, community service, electronic monitoring, restitution, and rehabilitation programs.

Treat substance abuse as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Free all non-violent incarcerated prisoners of the drug war. Provide treatment to parolees and probationers who fail a drug test instead of re-incarceration.

Release prisoners with diagnosed mental disorders to secure mental health treatment centers. Ensure psychological and medical care and rehabilitation services for mentally ill prisoners. Release prisoners who are too old and/or infirm to pose a threat to society to less expensive, community-based facilities.

Make reduction of recidivism a primary goal of parole. Treat parole as a time of reintegration into the community, not as a continuation of sentence. Provide community reentry programs for inmates before their release. Provide access to education, addiction and psychological treatment, job training, work and housing upon their release. Provide counseling and other services to the members of a parolee's family, to help them with the changes caused by the parolee's return. Prevent unwarranted search without reasonable cause to parolees and their homes.

Increase funding for rape and domestic violence prevention and education programs.

Never house juvenile offenders with adults. House violent and non-violent juvenile offenders separately. Continue the education of juveniles while in custody. Substantially decrease the number of juvenile's assigned to each judge and caseworker to oversee each juvenile's placement and progress in the juvenile justice system.

2. Prison Conditions, Prisoner Treatment and Parolees

Ensure prison conditions are humane and sanitary, including but are limited to heat, light, exercise, clothing, nutrition, libraries, possessions, and personal safety. Meet prisoners' dietary requirements. Ensure availability of psychological, drug, and medical treatment, including access to condoms and uninterrupted access to all prescribed medication. Minimize isolation of prisoners from staff and one another only as needed for safety. Make incarceration more community-based, including through increased visitor access by families. Establish and enforce prison policies that discourage racism, sexism, homophobia and rape.

Ban private prisons.

Implement a moratorium on prison construction. Redirect funds to alternatives to incarceration. Require that each state prison system install a rehabilitation administrator with equal authority as the highest authority.

Ensure that all prisoners have the opportunity to obtain a General Education Diploma (i.e. high school equivalency diploma) and higher education. Education has proven to reduce recidivism by 10%.

Ensure the First Amendment rights of prisoners, including the right to communicate with journalists, write letters, publish their own writings, and become legal experts on their own cases.

Provide incarcerated individuals the right to vote by absentee ballot in the district of their domicile, and the right to vote during parole.

Restore the right to hold public office to felons who have completed their prison sentence.

Conduct racial and ethnic disparity impact studies for new and existing categories of offenses.

3. Criminal Justice Reform

Abolish the death penalty.

Repeal 'three strikes' laws. Restore judicial discretion in sentencing. Abolish mandatory sentencing.

Establish and fund programs to strengthen self-help and community action through neighborhood centers that provide legal aid, alternative dispute-resolution practices, mediated restitution, community team policing, and access to local crisis/assault care shelters.

Establish elected or appointed independent civilian re-view boards with subpoena power to investigate complaints about prison guard and community police behavior. Sharply restrict police use of weapons and restraining techniques such as pepper spray, stun belts, tasers and choke holds.

Prohibit property forfeiture and denial of due process for unconvicted suspects.

Establish freedom on bail as a right of all defendants charged with non-violent crimes. Incorporate mental health and social services in bail agreements.

Increase compensation for jurors and provide childcare for those serving jury duty.

Protect victims' rights. Ensure the opportunity for victims to make victim-impact statements. Consider forms of restitution to victims.

Thoughtful, carefully considered gun control such as is contained in the Brady Bill (1993). Eliminate the gun show loophole that permits sale of weapons without background checks. Extend background checks to all private sales of firearms.

4. End the War on Drugs

End the 'war on drugs.' Redirect funds presently budgeted for the 'war on drugs' toward expanded research, education, counseling and treatment.

Amend the Controlled Substances Act to reflect that drug use in itself is not a crime, and that persons living in the United States arrested for using drugs should not be incarcerated with those who have committed victim oriented crimes.

Legalize possession, sale, and cultivation of cannabis/marijuana.

Strike from the record prior felony convictions for marijuana possession, sale, or cultivation.

Grant amnesty and release from confinement without any further parole or probation, those who have been incarcerated for the use, sale, or cultivation of marijuana in federal and state prisons and in county/city jails, and who otherwise are without convictions for victim oriented crimes, or who do not require treatment for abuse of hard drugs. Provide the option for drug treatment to those leaving confinement.

Implement a step-by-step program to decriminalize all drugs in the United States.^[7]

”

—2016 Green Party Platform^[14]

Libertarian candidate

Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson criticized Donald Trump for his support of stop-and-frisk policing in a statement released on September 27, 2016, in response to the first presidential debate. He wrote, "Americans believe in the Constitution and the protections it’s supposed to provide. Mr. Trump appears willing to ‘frisk’ those protections away if they get in the way of his version of fixing things."^[15]
In an interview on RT's "The Alyona Show" in April 2012, Johnson was critical of the use of stop-and-frisk tactics in New York City. He said, "Stop-and-frisk policies in New York: 700,000 New Yorkers have been stopped in the last year and basically searched. And we're not talking about getting on an airplane here. We're talking about on the streets of New York. And Mayor Bloomberg had criticism for Arizona's law [SB 1070]. Said it was going to lead to racial profiling. Well, I have got to tell you, in New York, I think racial profiling is going on right now with regard to the whole stop and frisk. Isn't this why we fought wars when it comes to protecting our civil liberties? Well, this is civil liberties out the window."^[16]
Read more of Gary Johnson's public statements on crime and justice.

The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform on crime and justice

“	The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.^[7]	”
—2016 Libertarian Party Platform^[17]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 2016 presidential candidates on stop and frisk. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

2016 presidential candidates on stop and frisk - Google News

External links

ProCon.org's "Should Law Enforcement Be Allowed to Use Racial Profiling?"

Footnotes

[1] The New York Times, "What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk," September 27, 2016

[2] The Washington Post, "Donald Trump claims New York’s stop-and-frisk policy reduced crime. The data disagree," September 22, 2016

[3] The Washington Post, "The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated," September 26, 2016

[4] TIME, "Hillary Clinton Says Evidence For Stop-and-Frisk ‘Doesn’t Hold Up,'" April 20, 2016

[5] Hillary Clinton for President, "Remarks from the 60th anniversary commemoration of the Montgomery Bus Boycott," January 31, 2016

[6] Democratic Party, "The 2016 Democratic Party Platform," accessed August 25, 2016

[quotedisclaimer-7] 7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 ^7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[8] The Washington Post, "The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated," September 26, 2016

[9] CBS News, "Trump gives tepid answer on birtherism; says he supports stop-and-frisk," September 22, 2016

[10] The Chicago Tribune, "Trump urges stop-and-frisk for Chicago, a practice attacked as racial profiling," September 22, 2016

[11] The Chicago Tribune, "Trump addresses Chicago crime: 'You need tough cookies,'" June 29, 2015

[12] Republican Party, "The 2016 Republican Party Platform," accessed August 25, 2016

[13] Democracy Now, "Expanding the Debate: Jill Stein 'Debates' Clinton & Trump in Democracy Now! Special - Part 1," September 27, 2016

[14] Green Party, "The 2016 Green Party Platform on Social Justice," accessed September 27, 2016

[15] Facebook, "Gary Johnson: My Statement on the First Presidential Debate," September 27, 2016

[16] YouTube, "The Alyona Show 4/25/12," April 26, 2012

[17] Libertarian Party, "The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform," accessed August 24, 2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

2016 presidential candidates on stop and frisk

Contents

Democratic candidate

Hillary Clinton

Republican candidate

Donald Trump

Green candidate

Jill Stein

Libertarian candidate

Gary Johnson

Recent news

See also

External links

Footnotes

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION