Sentencing Law and Policy

"The GOP platform’s surprisingly progressive stance on crime"

The title of this post is the headline of this astute recent Washington Post piece.  Here are excerpts:

Four years ago, Republicans devoted a section in their platform to the War on Drugs, lamenting the “human toll of drug addiction and abuse” and vowing to “continue the fight against producers, traffickers, and distributor of illegal substances.”

That plank is conspicuously missing from the GOP platform this year.  The fight against illegal drugs is only mentioned in passing, mostly with reference to drug cartels and the ban on using controlled substances for doctor-assisted suicide.

Policy experts agree that the omission is significant.  “This is less a ‘tough on crime’ document than you would have expected.  And leaving out the War on Drugs [is] quite astounding,” says Mark Kleiman, a crime policy expert and professor at UCLA.  “It’s a bit more of a libertarian attitude,” says Marc Levin, who runs a conservative criminal justice reform project called “Right on Crime” that’s attracted the support of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

What’s more, the 2012 platform includes new provisions that emphasize the importance of rehabilitation and re-entry programs to help ex-prisoners integrate back into society — using language that Kleiman describes as “a lot less ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key.’”

“While getting criminals off the street is essential, more attention must be paid to the process of restoring those individuals to the community,” the platform says.  “Prisons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.”  The document also criticizes the “overcriminalization of behavior,” though it doesn’t elaborate on the point much further.

Both Kleiman and Levin believe it’s partly the outgrowth of a prison-reform push on the part of GOP governors whose state budgets have been saddled with high incarceration expenses.  In recent months, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Gov. Chris Christie have embraced crime reform legislation to support the kind of rehabilitation programs that the GOP platform now advocates, with some also reducing jail time for non-violent offenders....

To be sure, there are still some aggressively “law-and-order” provisions in the platform, some of which go farther than the 2008 version.  The previous platform called for mandatory sentences for “gang conspiracy crimes, violent or sexual offenses against children, rape, and assaults resulting in serious bodily injury.”  This year, the provision has been expanded to include all “gang crimes, repeat drug dealers, robbery, and murder.”

But overall, the platform reveals a notable policy shift for the GOP, although it’s hasn’t been one that either side has mentioned much in this year’s election.

Some recent and older related posts:

• Reform records notable (though not so far noted) at Republican National Convention
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Ohio's Republican legislature, prodded by Republican gov, enacts major felon reentry reforms
• "The Right Sentencing: Conservatives backtrack on long prison sentences"
• Is it really true that "conservatives and liberals are increasingly united" on criminal justice reform?
• "Right on Crime: The Conservative Case for Reform" officially launches
• "NAACP, right-wing foes get friendly" when it comes to prison costs
• "Conservatives latch onto prison reform"

Reform records notable (though not so far noted) at Republican National Convention

I listened to most of the major speeches during the first night of the Republican National Convention; not surprisingly, I heard no mention of crime and punishment issues.  But that does not mean RNC speakers lack notable records on crime and punishment issues, as this post from FAMM Florida Project Director Greg Newburn highlights:

The Republican National Committee's list of speakers for the GOP convention ... [includes many speakers who have] embraced the “Smart on Crime” model ..., and in the process have demolished the tired idea that conservatives aren’t open to common-sense criminal justice reform.

Take Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who could never be confused with a liberal.  He has argued that “we have not been very successful in incarcerating our way out of the drug problem.  We’ve created a bigger problem.  Our prisons are teeming with people who don’t need to be incarcerated as full-time inmates . . . I’m not soft on crime. Crime needs to be punished, but realistically, and justly.”...

Ohio Governor John Kasich ... has a lifetime rating of 88% with the American Conservative Union.  Governor Kasich made criminal justice reform a priority of his administration, and last year he signed a reform bill designed to “send low-level nonviolent felons to rehabilitation facilities in lieu of prison, put a credit-earned system in place, and adjust prison sentences for drug and petty theft offenses.  The package was proposed as a means to save money, reduce recidivism, and ease overcrowding.”...

Another speaker, Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, recently joined Right on Crime, a group of conservative heavyweights that supports criminal justice reform (including mandatory minimum sentencing reform) and includes Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and Ed Meese.  Governor Bush said of the effort, “States across the country, including Florida, are proving that policies based on these sound conservative principles will reduce crime and its cost to taxpayers.”

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin worked with Right on Crime, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Republican legislators to craft a comprehensive Justice Reinvestment bill that included sentencing reforms and is projected to save her state millions of dollars.  On signing the bill, Governor Fallin said, “[I]n addition to saving tax dollars, [community sentencing options ] will help nonviolent offenders, many of whom have substance abuse problems, to receive treatment and safely get back into their communities.”

Of all the speakers at the convention, Senator Rand Paul might be the most vocal critic of mandatory minimum sentencing.  Not only has Senator Paul blocked federal drug legislation because it contained mandatory minimums, he’s said on the record that “On mandatory minimums, I don’t think teenagers accused of possessing drugs should get twenty years in prison.  I’ve fought to get rid of this.”

Perhaps most notably, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said recently that “[t]he war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has been a failure.”  Christie signed reform legislation designed to reduce New Jersey’s reliance on incarceration in drug cases, and made the case that such reforms go beyond saving money:  “If you're pro-life, as I am, you can't be pro-life just in the womb,” he said. “Every life is precious and every one of God's creatures can be redeemed, but they won't if we ignore them.”

Across the country, conservatives understand that criminal justice systems should be subject to the same analysis as every other area of public policy.  They realize we spend far too much on incarceration and receive far too little in return.  Thankfully, some of the GOP’s “brightest stars” have made criminal justice reform a part of governing and leading “effectively and admirably.” It’s good to see the Republican Party not only embracing such reforms, but also rewarding the conservative leaders in criminal justice reform with a chance to share their views at the convention.

Some recent and older related posts:

• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• Ohio's Republican legislature, prodded by Republican gov, enacts major felon reentry reforms
• "The Right Sentencing: Conservatives backtrack on long prison sentences"
• Is it really true that "conservatives and liberals are increasingly united" on criminal justice reform?
• "Right on Crime: The Conservative Case for Reform" officially launches
• "NAACP, right-wing foes get friendly" when it comes to prison costs
• "Conservatives latch onto prison reform"

Following the money in ballot contests over marijuana legalization

This new Reuters article, headlined "Legal marijuana backers raise $3 million in two US states," reports on the state of the ballot race (and the place of money in the race) concerning marijuana legalization. Here are excerpts from the piece:

Campaigns to become the first U.S. states to legalize marijuana for recreational use in Washington and Colorado have raised $3 million ahead of a November vote, far outpacing the opposition.

Proponents of pot legalization in Washington state have raised nearly $2 million since the initiative qualified for the ballot in January, and about $1 million in Colorado since its measure earned a place on the ballot the following month, according to the most recent state campaign figures.

In Oregon, where a voter referendum qualified in July, the legalization campaign reported less than $1,000 in contributions. All three state measures go on the ballot in November, when Americans vote for president and other offices.

With their war chests, backers of legalization drives in Washington state and Colorado have already bought television ads in a bid to convince voters, especially those who have never smoked pot, of merits of legalizing and taxing it....

"If one of these initiatives wins, it will really be a breakthrough," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which seeks alternatives to the current U.S. policy to combat drug use. "And in the end, just as there has been a federal-state conflict involving medical marijuana, we anticipate there will be similar conflicts when states begin to legally regulate marijuana like alcohol," he said. "But the only way we think change can happen is through this process."

Polls indicate support in Colorado and Washington for legalizing pot. A July poll by Survey USA of 630 registered voters in Washington state said 55 percent backed the marijuana legalization ballot measure. The margin of error was 4 percent. Rasmussen Reports said its June poll of likely Colorado voters showed 61 percent supported legalizing and regulating pot. The survey had 500 respondents and a margin of 4.5 percent.

Billionaire Peter Lewis, the Ohio-based chairman of Progressive Insurance who helped finance successful state-level campaigns for medical marijuana, has emerged as the Washington state legalization measure's largest supporter with total contributions this year of $875,000.... Drug Policy Action, a group related to New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, has given $600,000 this year to the Washington legalization campaign.

The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project has given the two registered groups behind the Colorado campaign most of their roughly $1 million in funds, state records show. Lists of donors to Marijuana Policy Project and Drug Policy Action are not publicly available....

[O]pponents of legalization have so far fallen short in fundraising. State campaign figures show that Smart Colorado has raised the most of any anti-legalization group, but its 2012 total stands at less than $40,000.

Holcomb said her pro-legalization group bought more than $1 million in TV air time in Washington state this month. In Colorado, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol spent $800,000 for fall season television ads, said Mason Tvert, co-director of the group.

Effective review of three-strikes initiative battle taking place in California

The Sacramento Bee has this lengthy new article providing an effective overview of the 2012 election season debate over an effort to reform California's three strikes law. The piece is headlined "'Three-strikes' battle returns to fall ballot in California," and here are excerpts:

Proposition 36 gives the state's electorate another opportunity to weigh in on California's 18-year-old "three-strikes" law, the toughest career-criminal sentencing statute in the nation.  Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for offenders who commit a third felony -- no matter how minor -- if they have two previous serious or violent criminal convictions on their records.

Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential burglary would qualify as a strike.

The measure would enable an estimated 3,000 of the 8,873 prisoners serving 25-years-to-life terms in the state as of June 30 to apply for resentencing hearings.  If their motions for new terms are granted, a good number of those 3,000 prisoners could go free.  The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates passage of Proposition 36 could save the state anywhere from $70 million to $90 million a year in reduced prison costs.

The initiative has had huge cash infusions from two sources.  Billionaire financier George Soros, the international hedge fund manager who has contributed millions over the years to change drug laws and other statutes he believes are too harsh, kicked in $500,000, according to the secretary of state's records. David W. Mills, a Stanford law professor and private investment manager, matched and raised the contribution.  Mills, a co-chair of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, put in $878,000.  The money Soros and Mills contributed paid for the $1.4 million signature-gathering effort that qualified Proposition 36 for the Nov. 6 ballot.

In an interview, Mills, 65, said his involvement in California's three-strikes law stems from his long-term interest in civil rights.  It is Mills' view that the sentencing measure's "dramatic effect on poor people and African Americans" makes it one of the leading civil rights issues of the day. "The notion I can live in a state in a country where we would send somebody to jail for 25-to-life for stealing a loaf of bread, a pair of gloves, a piece of pizza, for a gram of cocaine, or whatever, to me is incomprehensible," he said.

Opponents of the measure include the California Police Chiefs Association.  Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel signed the ballot rebuttal argument against Proposition 36 in his capacity as president of the California Peace Officers Association, arguing that thousands of criminals would be released from prison.  Top victims' rights organizations, such as Crime Victims United of California, also have lined up to fight the measure....

Mike Reynolds, the Fresno photographer whose daughter was murdered by a repeat offender, has served as guardian of the three-strikes law since its 1994 birth.  In an interview, Reynolds noted steep declines in the California crime rate in the 18 years that the law has been in effect.  He wonders why anyone would want to change it, and is angry at the thought of 3,000 career criminals getting out of prison.

"One hundred percent of them would have at least two prior serious or violent convictions," Reynolds said.  "Make no mistake.  We're talking about the bad boys.  These are the guys who are responsible for the worst of our crimes, the most active by definition.  And you want to put them back on the streets and not expect them to come back with new convictions?"

Another Proposition 36 opponent, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully, sneers at the suggestion that the three-strikes change would save taxpayers' money by releasing people from prison.  "This assumes they're not going to commit any more crimes," Scully said. "Trust me, they are.  Then we'll have to prosecute them again, so they'll be taking up just as many resources as before, except they'll have new victims in their path."

"Colorado marijuana legalization among crucial issues in state"

The title of this post is the headline of this Politico article, which reinforces my view (discussed here) that the presidential candidates will have a hard time dodging all discussion of federal pot prohibition and state pot policy reforms this election cycle.  Here are excerpts:

With the first presidential debate in Denver less than six weeks away, strategists and academics intimately familiar with Colorado gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss issues particular to the vital swing state, such as marijuana decriminalization, “personhood” votes, the death penalty, and the influence of rising Democratic star Gov. John Hickenlooper.

In a panel sponsored by the University of Denver and moderated by former White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers, participants said the Aurora, Colo., shooting failed to spark efforts at gun control, but instead elevated talk of the death penalty, an issue that hasn’t received much national attention during this campaign cycle.

“Gun sales went up in Denver the week of the shooting, so it doesn’t seem to have been the impetus for a conversation on gun control. It has generated a fair amount of discussion about the death penalty however,” said Dr. Sam Kamin, a professor of law at the University of Denver.

The University of Denver will be the site of the first 2012 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, to be held on Oct. 3....

And while the issues like the economy, Medicare and the deficit will no doubt be addressed during the debate, panelists took the time to address the specific policies making waves in the state.

At the same time as voters in Colorado head to the polls to cast a vote for president, they will also be addressing ballot questions on abortion and “personhood,” as well as the decriminalization of marijuana — so it is likely that the two presidential candidates might be asked about them.

The marijuana issue “is hugely popular with younger voters. … If they come out strongly and the Obama campaign doesn’t do anything to antagonize them on this issue, they could have a real impact,” Kamin said. “There’s a huge push online to get youth voters energized around that proposition, those are the exact same voters that had a lot of enthusiasm for the president four years ago.” Dee Dee Myers pointed out that Colorado is a state with more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks locations.

Some recent and older related posts on pot policies and politics: 

• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices
• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• Two notable new pieces on pot policy debates coming to mainstream politics
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• "Bummer: Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior"
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• "Marijuana Legalization Ballot Shows To Be Favored By Colorado Voters"

Sentencing at heart of research on "How to Move a Mind"

This week's New York Times Magazine has this must-read article discussing social science research on how opinions change.  (The hard copy delivery to my door carries the summary headline "How to Move a Mind; Changing a strongly held belief has little to do with actual facts." The on-line version here carries a different headline.)  The piece should be read by all lawyers and public policy advocates, and here are excerpts that include reports on notable research involving sentencing issues:

Scientists have been studying attitudes and preferences for more than a century; those topics are bound to the origins of social psychology itself....

In the last decade, psychologists have focused increasing attention on moral attitudes. Jonathan Haidt, professor of psychology at the Stern School of Business at New York University and author of “The Righteous Mind,” told me that researchers have been especially interested in the way emotions and attitudes interact. Moral attitudes are especially difficult to change, Haidt said, because the emotions attached to those preferences largely define who we are. “Certain beliefs are so important for a society or group that they become part of how you prove your identity,” he said. “It’s as though we circle around these ideas. It’s how we become one.”

We tend to side with people who share our identity — even when the facts disagree — and calling someone a flip-flopper is a way of calling them morally suspect, as if those who change their minds are in some way being unfaithful to their group. This is nonsense, of course. People change their minds all the time, even about very important matters. It’s just hard to do when the stakes are high. That’s why marshaling data and making rational arguments won’t work. Whether you’re changing your own mind or someone else’s, the key is emotional, persuasive storytelling.

In 2006, researchers from Ohio State University and Colorado State University demonstrated that a well-written TV drama can change the political opinions of college students. They split 178 students into two groups. One watched a crime show that told a persuasive story about the value of the death penalty. The other group watched a different, unrelated drama. Afterward, both groups were interviewed about their personal beliefs and their opinions on the death penalty. The students who watched the crime show were more likely to support the death penalty. In fact, support for the death penalty was about the same whether those students self-identified as liberal or conservative. That wasn’t true among the students who watched the other show. There, political ideology strongly predicted their opinions on the death penalty.

Timothy Wilson is a psychology professor at the University of Virginia and the author of the book “Redirect,” about how we change our minds and behavior. Stories are more powerful than data, Wilson says, because they allow individuals to identify emotionally with ideas and people they might otherwise see as “outsiders.”...

In some cases — if we want to think of ourselves as thoughtful and open-minded — we can adopt identities that actually encourage flip-flopping. This is why juries function, and it’s what places pressure on scientists to form opinions based on reliable data. In 2009, the Oregon Legislature mandated the creation of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, panels made up of random residents assigned to review and assess ballot initiatives in “citizens’ statements.” The panelists know they’re expected to base their opinions on hard evidence, and this expectation becomes part of their temporary identity.

Under those conditions, says John Gastil, professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State, facts suddenly matter. He points to Measure 73, a widely popular mandatory sentencing initiative, which the citizens’ panel voted against, 21 to 3. The panelists felt obligated to consider the measure more carefully than they otherwise would have, Gastil says, so they noted the high costs and thought about people who might be unfairly punished. Only a minority of voters knew the panel existed, so the measure still passed — though by a smaller margin than expected. In a study he performed on the public response to Measure 73, Gastil found that the panel’s opinion significantly changed the minds of those people who read its findings. “You got a shift from two-thirds in favor to two-thirds against just by reading the report,” Gastil says.

New poll numbers (and polling techniques) surrounding California DP repeal initiative

This local California story, headlined "Poll says death penalty support rises after mass shootings," has interesting poll data and interesting debates concerning the poll data on California's death penalty repeal initiative.  Here are details:

According to one set of polls, support for California’s death penalty has risen — and support for an initiative to repeal it has plummeted – since the mass killings at a theater in Colorado.

A survey by the California Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, released on July 19, found that 45.5 percent of the respondents favored Proposition 34 and 46.7 percent opposed it — a statistical tie, since the difference was within the poll’s margin of error. Prop. 34 on the November ballot would abolish the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A day after the poll came out, a gunman killed 12 people and wounded 58 at a theater in Aurora, Colo. On Aug. 5, another gunman killed six and wounded three at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., before being shot by a police officer. The gunman, white supremacist Wade Michael Page, then took his own life.

The first Business Roundtable-Pepperdine poll after the Aurora massacre was released Aug. 2. It found 35.9 percent of respondents in favor of Prop. 34 and 55.7 percent opposed. The latest poll, released Thursday, found 38.2 percent in favor and 52.2 percent opposed. The polling organization said its sample for that survey consisted of 811 Californians, contacted between Sunday and Wednesday, who described themselves as likely voters. The margin of error was 3.4 percent.

It’s impossible to say how much the results were affected by the mass shootings or by other events, like Jared Lee Loughner’s negotiated guilty plea Aug. 7 to serve a life term for the January 2011 shootings in Tucson that killed six people and wounded 13, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. It certainly seems plausible that news of a mass murder would evoke an emotional response and support for greater punishment.

The director of the Yes-on-34 campaign isn’t buying it. Natasha Minsker called the Business Roundtable-Pepperdine polling “very unreliable” and noted that it was conducted online, in contrast to the standard method of questioning a selected group of respondents over the telephone.

It’s hard to keep tabs on the people who take part in an Internet poll, Minsker said, and this one seems particularly questionable: It showed Prop. 34 doing better in conservative San Diego County than in the liberal Bay Area. She said phone polls by her campaign organization, and private polls she’s aware of, show Prop. 34 leading, though she didn’t give precise numbers.

But the director of the Business Roundtable poll said online surveys, though relatively new, are at least as reliable as telephone polls. Chris Condon, research director for a company called M4 Strategies, said respondents are chosen carefully to reflect the demographics of California’s voting population and checked to make sure they’re who they say they are. They’re also paid a small sum as an incentive. Condon said he’s compared some past results with phone polling on the same issues and found they were pretty close. Although the online surveys obviously leave out anyone who lacks a computer, Condon said phone polls likewise omit people without land lines, and also have to rely on the pollster’s oral description of each ballot measure. Participants in the online polls, Condon said, see the measure’s title and summary and can open a link to the ballot arguments. “In a sense, we’re closer to how people vote,” he said....

Whatever the method, Mitch Zak, spokesman for the No-on-34 campaign, said the latest poll “highlights what folks have known all along: Californians strongly support the death penalty.”

Former DA of LA says California "can no longer afford" its death penalty system

Gil Garcetti, the former Los Angeles district attorney, has this new op-ed headlined "End death penalty for dollars and sense."  Here are excerpts:

My office sought the death penalty in dozens of cases when I was the Los Angeles County district attorney for eight years, and chief deputy district attorney for four.  The cases had horrific and compelling facts; I had no problem seeking death sentences.  But though I never was squeamish, I now fully support Proposition 34 to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no possibility of parole.  Here's why.

California's death penalty is broken beyond repair, hideously expensive, and inevitably carries the risk of executing an innocent person.  The hundreds of millions of dollars we throw away on this broken system would be much better spent on solving and preventing crime and investing in our kids' schools.

I have no qualms with the death penalty in theory.  I do, however, object to the way it is carried out in practice.  We condemn murderers to Death Row with the hope of delivering severe punishment for their crimes.

Yet the reality is that these criminals enjoy special status.  Fan mail, private cells, their own personal television and other special privileges are not what I envisioned when I sought the death penalty as district attorney.  I am sure that is not what family members of victims envisioned either.

What's more, the costs of this dysfunctional system are staggering.  There's special housing, legal teams and a double trial process, among other costs.  The Office of the Legislative Analyst in California found that replacing it with life in prison without parole could save us $130 million every year.

We are on track to spend $1 billion on this broken system over the next five years.  All for what?  Most inmates die of old age.  We need to stop the waste wherever we can.  We need that money for police and teachers, not a Death Row that exists in name only....

Let me be clear: I am no less adamant about punishing heinous killers now.  Proposition 34 is tough justice.  Convicted murderers and rapists will remain in prison until they die, with no hope of ever getting out, and will have to work and pay restitution for their crimes.

The time is now to invest our scarce resources where they can do the most good. Fighting crime and funding education are sound investments.  We can no longer afford to prop up a system that works only in theory while it robs us of precious tax dollars.  California is ready for justice that works for everyone.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Kent's comment, I see now this companion op-ed authored by Stephen Wagstaffe, the San Mateo County DA, and Marc Klaas, father of 12-year-old Polly Klaas who was murdered by Richard Allen Davis. The piece is headlined "Ending death penalty would fuel crime," and it begins this way:

Should California preserve the death penalty for vicious murderers?  

That's the real question for voters considering Proposition 34.  It's not about saving money or preventing the execution of innocent people.  Those are political statements by special interests who have consistently fought against capital punishment.  Prop. 34 is their latest effort, complete with a catchy name and slick sales pitch.

We oppose Prop. 34 from the perspective of a father forced to bury his 12-year-old little girl after she was raped and murdered, and a district attorney who has taken an oath to defend and protect innocent citizens.

Should it pass, Prop. 34 would embolden violent criminals.  Make no mistake; criminals will take advantage of leniency and act brazenly without fear of consequences.

When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?

With the summer winding down and the political conventions not far away, I am already giving thought to whether, when and how crime and punishment issues could become part of the 2012 Presidential campaign.  One notable and distinguishing feature of recent big national elections has been the lack of engagement with domestic crime and justice issues, due in part probably to a combination of declining crime rates, declining differences in the policies of the major parties, and the focus on terrorism as the chief public safety concern to get national political attention in the wake of 9/11.

For various reasons, I expect Obama and Romney to both make the (wise? safe?) decision to avoid significant discussion of many serious domestic criminal justice issues.  Neither candidate has an exemplary record on these issues, but neither has an obvious political vulnerability on this front that the other might seek to exploit.  Thus, I will be very surprised if either campaign brings up crime and punishment issues or if there is any discussion of them at the conventions.

But, as the question in the title of this post suggests, I suspect it may prove very hard for the candidates to completely dodge some engagement with pot prohibition or federal pot policy over the next three months.  This is so for various reasons: (1) there are state pot legalization initiatives on the ballot in three states, including the swing state of Colorado, (2) Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson may work hard to get these issues into the campaign mix; (3) many local candidate are engaging with these issues in state campaigns (see, e.g., this recent story from Vermont); and (4) pro-legalization forces are very effective at pushing these issues when given a chance to post questions on YouTube or via other open avenues.

I doubt pot policy will ever become a "big" issue in the fall campaign, but I would be working hard on a nuanced answer to the many potentially tough marijuana questions if I were working for one of the campaigns.  Indeed, if Romney really needs and is looking for a "Sister Souljah Moment," as this recent New Republic commentary argues, he might consider going after Obama for seemingly breaking his 2008 campaign promise to leave states alone to do their own thing on medical marijuana fronts.  (Though were Romney to talk about reformed pot policies, we might now call this a Pat Roberson moment.)

Some recent and older related posts on pot policies and politics: 

• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices
• Big win at polls for medical marijuana supporter in Oregon AG race
• Latest polling indicates legalization of marijuana now has strong majority support
• Two notable new pieces on pot policy debates coming to mainstream politics
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• "Bummer: Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior"
• Proof of prohibition's failings?: teens now smoke pot more than tobacco
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?

New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices

Anyone following closely discussions and debates over marijuana policy (which is a sentencing law and policy issue in so many ways) can and should find time to read these terrific recent articles on the topic:

• From Governing, "Medical Marijuana: Do States Know How to Regulate It?"

• From Rolling Stone, "Pot Legalization Is Coming"

Both of these pieces present effective and sober assessments of the state of pot politics, policies and practices circa summer 2012. Both also highlight the degree to which state marijuana policies and practices will always be significantly (and unduly?) shaped by federal marijuana policies and practices. Here is a small excerpt from the first piece to that point:

Colorado’s evolution reflects the broader lessons states have learned in the decade and a half since California became the first state to approve medical cannabis in 1996. In that time, California has gained a reputation as something of the Wild West for weed: no state regulatory model, notoriously lax enforcement and an undefined set of prescription criteria that makes obtaining a medical marijuana card little more than a wink-wink formality.  But as more states have legalized medical marijuana -- today it’s legal to some degree in 17 states plus the District of Columbia -- a more tightly controlled approach seems to be emerging. Ten states and D.C. have set up a system of authorized dispensaries, and 16 states have outlined specific conditions for which medical marijuana can be used.  Even California has considered reining things in: Lawmakers moved this summer to develop the state’s first comprehensive licensing and permitting structure.

But no matter how controlled a state’s medical marijuana policy may be, federal law still bans the cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana for any purpose.  The Obama administration has stated that it will not prosecute patients, but growers and distributors in medical marijuana states have still been targeted by multiple federal agencies, including the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  Medical marijuana businesses continue to operate in a legal gray zone.  “In any other business, if you fail, you file for bankruptcy and move on.  If you fail in this business, you go to jail,” says Arbelaez, a patient himself and a former attorney who moved to Denver from New Orleans in 2009.  “The one thing I can hold onto is complete compliance.  The Colorado legal code is our only line of defense.  It’s the only way to show regulation is better than prohibition.”

The Governing magazine also has these related articles for its August 2012 issue:

• Pot Legalization Could Set Up State-Federal Showdown
• Bill to Regulate, Tax Medical Marijuana Dies in California
• Chicago Decriminalizes Low-Level Marijuana Possession

Ralph Nader urges Obama and Romney to discuss "the prison-industrial complex"

I have a wide array of mixed feelings about Ralph Nader as a politician and policy advocate, but I have no reservations endorsing his advocacy for more political discourse about mass incarceration and the drug war.  This Nader advocacy appears in this lengthy new opinion piece headlined "Obama/Romney: Start debating the prison-industrial complex."  Here are excerpts:

Ever visit a major prison?  The vast majority of Americans have not, despite our country having by far a higher incarceration rate per capita than China or Iran.  Out of sight is out of mind.

Imagine the benefits of the average taxpayer touring a prison. The lucrative prison-industrial complex would definitely not like public exposure of their daily operations. Prison CEOs have no problem with a full house of non-violent inmates caught with possession of some street drugs (not alcohol or tobacco)....

Indeed, for the giant Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), times are booming. CCA builds their prisons or buys or leases public prisons from financially strapped governments. Barron’s financial weekly can always be expected to give us the Wall Street perspective. In a recent article titled “Ready to Bust Out,” writer Jonathan R. Laing is bullish on CCA stock....

Mr. Laing writes that CCA has cost advantages over the public-prison sector, paying lower non-union wages and using more automated technology.  Besides, the company is a tough bargainer when it buys or operates public prisons.  One CCA condition is that the facility must have 1,000 beds, can’t be more than 25 years old, and get this, “the contract must guarantee a 90 percent occupancy rate.”  A guarantee backed by taxpayers no less, unless, that is, the clause works to put more prisoners in jail for longer sentences.

The Barron’s article adds that CCA is counting on “the old standby of recidivism to keep prison head counts growing, filling its empty beds.” To the impoverished rural communities where these prisons are located, it’s about needed jobs....

The same perverse incentives apply to the self-defeating trillion-dollar war on drugs (see http://www.drugpolicy.org/).  History has demonstrated that driving addictions into illegal undergrounds creates vicious underworld crimes.  In Mexico, the so-called drug cartel is getting close to destroying local governments in many regions.  In the U.S., half a million people are behind bars for nonviolent drug offenses, the vast majority arrested for mere possession, not production or sale. That is nearly one in four of all prisoners. There are twenty million marijuana arrests every year in the U.S.!

Drug addictions are treated as crimes instead of as health problems, which we do with tobacco and alcohol addictions.  Gross racial disparities persists, starting with black teenagers having to go to jail for a drug offense six times more often than a comparable white youth, both with prior clean records (http://www.nyclu.org/content/commission-must-reform-inhumane-drug-laws)....

Right/Left convergence is emerging.  Last April, for instance, David Keene, former Chair of the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, joined with the NAACP and other liberals to highlight escalating levels of prison spending and its impact on our nation’s children and poorly performing schools. Connecticut spends $40,000 a year to imprison a juvenile offender compared to less than $12,000 a year to educate a young person.

Other similar convergences over hugely disparate sentencing as with crack and cocaine are forming, making both economic and humane arguments. More young black men are locked up than are in college, according to the Justice Roundtable.

Still, there hasn’t been enough reform pressure even to pass outgoing U.S. Senator Jim Webb’s legislation simply to create a National Criminal Justice Commission Act. This legislation is now stuck in Senatorial limbo.  Start up the prison tours.  Have some led by articulate, former convicts who are pushing to reform our cruel, costly and ineffective prison system.  It is so easy to do much better, if we want to.

"The Right Sentencing: Conservatives backtrack on long prison sentences"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable piece by Michael Barone via the National Review Online. Here are excerpts:

Conservatives in increasing numbers are moving away from their decades-long support for long prison terms for criminals. Last year, Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, and Reagan attorney general Edwin Meese endorsed a “right on crime” initiative, calling for rehabilitation measures rather than prison sentences for nonviolent offenders. They joined liberals who have been dismayed that America has just about the highest rate of incarceration of any nation in history.

There’s little question that the vast increase in prison populations from the lows of the 1960s to the highs of recent decades has resulted in reduced crime. Violent offenders who are locked up can’t attack people outside. But it’s also true that crime rates stayed high for a couple of decades after prison populations started their vast increases. Better police tactics, pioneered by Rudy Giuliani and William Bratton in New York City and adapted by many others, played a major role.

Meanwhile, laws requiring mandatory minimum sentences have resulted in lengthy terms for many who are likely to be no threat to society. This has led conservatives such as anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist to endorse the Families Against Mandatory Minimums organization. It seems particularly unfair to many conservatives, as well as to liberals, that judges must sentence people possessing small amounts of marijuana to five-year terms when states with medical-marijuana dispensaries have de facto legalized the substance.

Some conservatives have taken such stands after serving in prison themselves, including the late Charles Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship, and Pat Nolan, a former Republican California legislator. Nolan points out that conservatives such as Texas governor Rick Perry have turned down proposals to build new prisons and have stepped up drug-treatment programs instead....

[T]here’s a strong case to be made that stringent anti-crime measures that were, after some years, effective at reducing crime are no longer necessary now that violent-crime rates have gone down. So just as facts have prompted liberals to abandon stricter gun control, facts seem to be persuading conservatives to abandon tough anti-crime laws they once championed.

Big win at polls for medical marijuana supporter in Oregon AG race

As highlighted in this Reuters article, which is headlined "Supporter of Oregon medical pot law wins attorney general race," a significant primary victory for a vocal supporter of medical marijuana suggests the 2012 election cycle might be a real turning point for pot policies.  Here are the basics:

In a primary election race for Oregon's top law enforcement post, the candidate who pledged to protect medical marijuana patients scored a decisive victory Tuesday night over a rival who led a cannabis crackdown last year.

Retired judge Ellen Rosenblum, strongly backed by proponents of liberalized marijuana laws, captured 63 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary for state attorney general, trailed by former U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton with 36 percent, according to early returns.

Because no Republicans sought their party's nomination for attorney general, the Democratic primary victor, Rosenblum, becomes the presumptive winner in November's general election, making her the first woman to claim that office.

With Rosenblum and Holton taking similar stances on issues such as consumer protection, civil rights and the environment, their diametrically opposed views on medical marijuana emerged as a key point of contention in the race, so much so that the campaign was seen largely as a referendum on drug policy generally.

"As attorney general, I will make marijuana enforcement a low priority, and protect the rights of medical marijuana patients," Rosenblum said on her website before the election. By contrast, Holton called Oregon's medical marijuana law, which has left distribution and cultivation of pot largely unregulated, a "trainwreck" that was putting pot "in the hands of kids" and others who are using it for purposes other than pain management.

In a brief victory statement issued shortly after election officials began to tally the ballots, Rosenblum said she was "honored to have been selected by the voters of Oregon as their choice for the Democratic nominee (for) Attorney General of Oregon." She made no mention of marijuana or any other specific issues. Nor did Holton, who in his concession statement thanked, among others, the coalition of organized labor groups that backed his candidacy.

But medical marijuana advocates seized on Rosenblum's win as a sign that voters were at odds with the federal government's recent crackdown on storefront cannabis shops in states that have legalized personal use, possession and cultivation of pot for healthcare reasons....

The primary contest unfolded as two groups in Oregon are racing to collect enough signatures for two separate ballot initiatives seeking to legalize marijuana for recreational use in the state. If their efforts are successful, Oregon voters will join those in Colorado and Washington state who will decide on the matter in November. A total of 16 states, plus the District of Columbia, allow medical marijuana, though cannabis remains classified as an illegal narcotic under federal law.

Some experts predicted a Rosenblum triumph could resonate well outside of Oregon's largely Democratic-registered electorate. "A victory for Rosenblum could have symbolic power which would reach beyond the state into the national debate," said University of Oregon political science professor Joe Lowndes.

Could I be (and should I want to be) federal prisoner Keith Judd's DNC delegate from West Virginia?

The question in the title of this post is meant — sort of, maybe — as a joke in light of the notable primary voting news out of West Virginia reported in this AP article, headlined "Against Obama, even a jailbird gets some votes." Here are the basics:

Just how unpopular is President Barack Obama in some parts of the country?  Enough that a man in prison in Texas got 4 out of 10 votes in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary.

The inmate, Keith Judd, is serving time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, for making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999.  Obama received 59 percent of the vote to Judd's 41 percent.

For some West Virginia Democrats, simply running against Obama is enough to get Judd votes. "I voted against Obama," said Ronnie Brown, a 43-year-old electrician from Cross Lanes who called himself a conservative Democrat.  "I don't like him. He didn't carry the state before and I'm not going to let him carry it again."  When asked which presidential candidate he voted for, Brown said, "That guy out of Texas."

Judd got on the state ballot by paying a $2,500 fee and filing a form known as a notarized certification of announcement, said Jake Glance, a spokesman for the Secretary of State's office.

Attracting at least 15 percent of the vote would normally qualify a candidate for a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.  But state Democratic Party Executive Director Derek Scarbro said no one has filed to be a delegate for Judd. The state party also believes that Judd has failed to file paperwork required of presidential candidates, but officials continue to research the matter, Scarbro said.

It would be silly (and surely inaccurate) to claim that democratic primary voters in West Virginia voted for Keith Judd over Barack Obama because they were hopeful that a federal felon would push Democrats to make sentencing and prison reform a higher priority within the party.  But it would not be silly (nor inaccurate) to claim that all the people of West Virginia who voted in the primary for Judd ought to have their votes represented at the Democratic National Convention by a delegate (like me) who is not going to to just fall in line with all the Obama supporters and who will go to the DNC with some of Judd's interests and concerns in mind. 

Of course, I neither live or work in West Virginia, but the same is true for Keith Judd.  (This Politico piece about Judd explains that he "currently resides in a low-security prison in Texas — Federal Correctional Institution Texarkana — where he’s serving a 210-month sentence for extortion connected to making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999.  His projected release date is June. 24, 2013.")   For that reason, and so many others, I really think I could be the perfect person to head down to Charlotte in late summer and represent the tens of thousands of West Virginia democrats who indicated last night that they are eager for some new voices to be heard at the DNC.

Two notable new pieces on pot policy debates coming to mainstream politics

Two publications known for political and social commentary have these two new pieces on the modern politics of pot policy:

• From The Atlantic here, "Gary Johnson and the End of Marijuana As a Fringe Issue

• From The Huffington Post here, "The Marijuana Vote"

Both of these pieces merit a full read, and here is a notable excerpt from the latter one:

The "marijuana vote" is something that is virtually impossible to demographically study. It cuts across all the standard groupings of age, sex, occupation, living situation, ethnicity, race, religion, and economic status. It can't be studied, because its members are perpetually underground: What they do is illegal, after all, and who is going to admit to a random pollster on the telephone: "Sure, I smoke pot... I smoke a bunch of pot!" The marijuana vote does not advertise itself on bumper stickers ("I smoke pot, and I VOTE!") or with any organized political movement.  When people can lose their jobs (or worse) by admitting they're part of a demographic, then compiling stats on the group becomes impossible.  They are invisible, and their aim (under our current laws) is to stay that way.

In public life, admitting to smoking marijuana used to be an automatic disqualification for a candidate for just about any office.  Now, it is not.  Politicians are given a free pass on the issue; "When I was young and irresponsible... in college... I smoked some pot" does not disqualify anyone anymore from any office.  What I keep waiting for some intrepid reporter to ask one of these public figures is: "Do you think you would be where you are today if you had gotten busted for your marijuana use back then?" It's all about not getting caught, in other words.  If you smoked pot in a frat house and never got busted, that is one thing.  If you did get nabbed, well, sorry, but nobody's going to vote for you. How twisted is the logic behind that?  Politicians who skated by when they were young now approve a crackdown on the very same things they used to do (but escaped punishment for).  The stench of hypocrisy is impossible to avoid.

Notable discussion in Washington (state) over ending pot prohibition

This local press article, headlined "Initiative to regulate, tax marijuana stirs lively discussion at forum," provides a greater reminder that there is a robust debate over marijuana laws in Washington (state, that is).  Here are excerpts from an effective article which highlights why The Evergreen State joins Colorado as states to watch concerning pot policy in 2012:

If there's one thing that brings people together, it's this: Marijuana regulation is a mess. But the granular details about how to fix it divided a panel of law-enforcement and public-health experts convened Thursday night to debate Initiative 502, a landmark proposal to regulate and tax marijuana like liquor that is on the November ballot.

John McKay, who filed the initiative after witnessing the "complete failure" of marijuana prohibition as the U.S. Attorney in Seattle for six years, said legalization was a "simple solution."

"If it's a failure, does that mean we need to try something new?" asked McKay.  "There's millions of dollars in marijuana produced out there, but it's all going to cartels, it's going to gangs.  The change should be to bring legal business in, and grow it legally."

The state estimates that I-502, the first marijuana initiative on the ballot since voters authorized medical cannabis in 1998, would raise $560 million a year via state-licensed marijuana grow farms and retail stores. If passed, it would be the nation's most radical change in marijuana law in generations.

But Pat Slack, commander of the Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force, scoffed at McKay's core argument, that heavily taxed marijuana would end the black market.  "You will open a black market where you can sell this product for cheaper than what the government is selling," he said.

The debate, at Mukilteo City Hall, is part of a series of forums kicking off the nationally watched campaign.  I-502 would decriminalize possession of 1 ounce of marijuana, and legalize and heavily tax sales from newly created, state-licensed marijuana stores, with the state Liquor Control Board setting regulations by December, 2013.  Colorado is the only other state with marijuana legalization on its November ballot.

I-502's supporters include another former U.S. Attorney, a retired FBI supervisor, several judges, public-health officials, a drug researcher, the King County Labor Council, the state Democratic Party, as well as Seattle's mayor, city attorney and entire City Council....

But law-enforcement groups and medical-marijuana patients have lined up against I-502, for very different reasons. Police, including Slack, say it is a gateway to greater marijuana acceptance, especially among youth.  Patients fear a new driving-while-stoned threshold in I-502 would effectively prevent them from legally driving.  A strong contingent of them watched the debate, peppering McKay and another supporter, University of Washington marijuana researcher Roger Roffman, with questions....

A Gallup Poll in October found nationwide support for legalizing marijuana was above 50 percent for the first time in the 42 years since Gallup started asking the question. In Washington, a poll in November on I-502's specific approach found 57 percent support.... If passed, the state Office of Financial Management estimates that at least 363,000 customers would buy at least 93.5 tons of marijuana, each year....

About 10,000 people are arrested for marijuana possession each year, although not all are prosecuted. When the debate panel struggled, in response to a question from the audience, to explain why marijuana was classified along with PCP and methamphetamine, McKay paused.  "It's interesting that we can't articulate why," he said. "I think most people know in their experience that it is ludicrous."

Some recent and older related posts: 

• Tipping point?: Pat Robertson joins crowd eager to end pot prohibition
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• Pot legalization efforts fail to qualify for 2012 ballot in California
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• New poll reports that large majority of Americans consider "War on Drugs" a failure
• Two state govs request that feds reclassify pot to ease medical use
• "Marijuana questions dominate White House online chat -- again"
• Fascinating NPR piece on how feds have ended local innovation on pot regulation
• "Obama's War on Pot"
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC

"Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper by Professor Sam Kamin, which is now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

My contribution to this special issue will describe the phenomenon of Colorado's medical marijuana industry and speculate about what Colorado can tell us about the future of marijuana regulation in the United States.  I have had an opportunity to interview more than twenty players in this industry-including law enforcement officials, activists, lawyers, and dispensary owners-over the last year and to speak informally with a great many more. Based on these discussions and other research that I have done on the emergent industry in my state, this article describes how the industry has grown in Colorado since 2008, puts this transformative change into perspective, and then draws some tentative conclusions about the future of drug policy in the United States, the appropriate federal-state balance in this area, and the relationship between criminal laws and broader societal norms.

Pot legalization efforts fail to qualify for 2012 ballot in California

As reported in this prior post, it became official yesterday that Californians will get a chance to vote this fall on a ballot initiative to repeal the state's death penalty.  But, as reported in this effective local story about other initiative news, headlined "Marijuana Legalization Efforts Fail in California, Thanks to Money and The Feds," these voters will not get another chance to consider marijuana legalization in the 2012 ballot booth.  Here is part of the backstory:

Few successful political movements count their finest hours a loss. Yet 2010 will remain the high water mark of the marijuana legalization movement for at least another two years -- or longer, if the federal situation worsens.

Buoyed by Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee's cash and energy, Proposition 19 -- which would have legalized possession of up to an ounce of pot for adults 21 and over, and allowed cultivation of small gardens -- lost in November 2010. It garnered a historic 4.6 million votes, or 46.2 percent of ballots cast.  Following the loss, Lee declared on election night that legalization was inevitable, and that legalization would return in 2012 "stronger than ever" with a new ballot measure.

While Lee bowed out -- and the Prop. 19 redux committee instead focused on reforming medical marijuana -- the 2012 election cycle began with four competing legalization measures. But what was inevitable became official on Friday, when all committees missed the deadline to qualify their initiatives for the November ballot....

Of the failed efforts, one -- Regulate Marijuana Like Wine -- came closest, according to proponent Steve Kubby, a South Lake Tahoe-based activist.  That measure managed to collect about 200,000 signatures [of the 500,000 needed], Kubby said on Monday. Other efforts like Repeal Cannabis Prohibition, sponsored by a coterie of attorneys in Mendocino County and the Bay Area, waved the surrender flag much earlier.

So what killed the legalization movement? Money, mostly. In 2010, the federal government helped defeat Prop. 19: In the weeks before the election, Attorney General Eric Holder warned that if the measure passed, his Justice Department would "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws.  That had a cooling effect -- as did U.S. Attorney for Northern California Melinda Haag's shot sent across the bows of Oakland and other cities eager to cash in on legal weed.  Haag also said that Prop. 19's passage would mean lots of work for federal drug enforcement.

Nowadays in Bay Area marijuana circles, Haag is seen as somewhere between the bogeyman and evil incarnate for her office's participation in a statewide crackdown on the medical marijuana industry.  It's a near-certainty that the closures of hundreds of dispensaries across the state by the feds had some kind of effect -- which would have been moot in the face of money....

Meanwhile, Lee's influence has all been neutralized. Well before the federal government relieved him of his business, he abdicated his throne as the movement's de-facto leader. He'd spent his life savings -- about $1.5 million -- and an untold effort on Prop. 19.  It was someone else's turn, he later told reporters.  "The polling wasn't really positive," Lee said on a conference call with reporters last week.  "But what's really overwhelming right now is the federal issue."

Right.  Many marijuana supporters speculate that the crackdown will lessen once President Barack Obama is reelected in the fall.  And if he isn't?  Well, you may be able to wistfully tell your grandkids about the wonder that 2010 was.

Beyond providing another lesson in "follow the money," this story spotlights how unpredictable the movement to end pot prohibition is likely to be in the coming years.  After the (surprisingly?) close vote in 2010, I expected California to be the state to watch for growth in the legalization movement.  But, perhaps in part because of how close the vote was in 2010, a lot of forces impacted the script and now it appears that Colorado and Washington become the 2012 states to watch in the legalization effort. 

Any early predictions (or wagers) on likely outcome of California's DP-repeal ballot measure?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this Reuters piece reporting on an official development in the initiative campaign to enable Californians to vote on repealing the state's death penalty.  Here are the basics:

California voters will decide in November whether to repeal the state's death penalty after activists collected the more than half a million signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot, the Secretary of State's office said on Monday.

The ballot initiative, which focuses on the high cost of the death penalty, would abolish capital punishment as the maximum sentence in murder convictions and replace it with life imprisonment.

The move was estimated to save the state money in the "high tens of millions of dollars annually," according to an estimate of the fiscal impact of the bill that is included in the text of the measure.

The 723 current inmates already on California's death row would have their sentences commuted. The state has carried out only 13 executions since the death penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976....

The ballot measure was approved as a growing number of states question the use of the death penalty, and comes less than two weeks after Connecticut lawmakers voted to repeal the death penalty there.... Illinois, New Mexico and New Jersey all voted to abolish the death penalty in recent years, and New York's death penalty law was declared unconstitutional in 2004. Other state legislatures are considering bills to end the death penalty, and Oregon's governor has said he would halt all executions on his watch.

In addition to abolishing the death penalty, the California measure would also create a $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases. It would also require convicted murderers to work in prison, and would apply their wages to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.

Some notable stories on the modern politics of pot

Today I came across these various interesting stories from various sources discussing various political angle on modern marijuana laws and policies:

• From Forbes here, "High Roller: How Billionaire Peter Lewis Is Bankrolling Marijuana Legalization"

• From Politico here, "Obama's pot promise a pipe dream?"

• From Reason here, "Connecticut Medical Marijuana Legalization Gets Closer, But Politicians Still Have Some Stupid, Cruel, and Anti-Market Objections"