« AG Holder describes his "five principles" for combatting crime | Main | Intriguing NPR piece on compassionate release of Lockerbie bomber »

August 24, 2009

Latest legislative twist suggests California won't have a sentencing commission anytime soon

This blog post from the LA Times provides what seems to be the latest news out of the California legislature concerning proposed prison and sentencing reforms in that state.  Here are the basics:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has put off a vote on a package of legislation intended to trim spending on state prisons, and she intends to eliminate a provision of the plan that would have created a commission to reevaluate California’s sentencing laws, according to an Assembly source who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

After keeping Assembly members until midnight Thursday in the hope of reaching a deal on prisons, Bass (D-Los Angeles) said she would try to approve it today. But based on conversations over the weekend, she still does not have enough votes from the Democrats who control the chamber....

Although Bass agreed to bolster the law enforcement representation on the sentencing commission, Assembly member Alberto Torrico (D-Newark), one of three Assembly Democrats running for attorney general, said Sunday that a key issue remained: how much power lawmakers would have over whether to implement the panel’s recommendations.
Under the Senate’s plan -- and in the Assembly version, until now -- the commission’s recommendations would automatically take effect if the Legislature and governor failed to reject them. That way, even if lawmakers rejected the panel’s findings, they would still go into effect if the governor vetoed the lawmakers’ vote.  “The notion that the Legislature would not be required to vote on a sentencing commission proposal, I just think it’s real problematic,” Torrico said.

Some recent related posts:

August 24, 2009 at 07:03 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Latest legislative twist suggests California won't have a sentencing commission anytime soon:

» Ding, Dong, the Sentencing Commission is Dead? from Crime and Consequences Blog
We are not ready to cue the Munchkin chorus yet, but it's looking good for the demise of the proposed sentencing commission in California. As noted here, the proposed commission would have had power far beyond that given to, e.g.,... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 25, 2009 4:57:25 PM

» Not For Sale from Crime and Consequences Blog
For some reason, some people seem to be very anxious to find a connection between the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF) and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), or to just make one up if they can't find one.... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 1, 2009 1:40:03 PM


The prison guard union gives big, very big, bucks to The Battin Group (aka Voter Strategies) which is a powerful Republican lobbying machine run by former California Senator Jim Battin, who is embedded with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (hi, Kent!) Battin and George Runner are strong CCPOA supporters. CCPOA is a strong tough on crime supporter through it crime victim groups. (There's no one in California to regularly serve Grits for Breakfast so they can get away with that stuff.)

All of this is secret. Don't tell anyone because the Dems might figure out what is going on.

Posted by: Anon | Aug 25, 2009 12:41:59 AM

"California Senator Jim Battin, who is embedded with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation...."

False. Former Senator Battin is not and never has been affiliated with CJLF.

"CCPOA is a strong tough on crime supporter through it crime victim groups."

Don't know about other groups, but for the record CJLF has never received one red cent from CCPOA.

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Aug 25, 2009 12:41:24 PM

Battin signed onto many of your briefs and supports CCPOA. Close enough.

Posted by: George | Aug 27, 2009 4:54:50 PM

It is both amazing and appalling the garbage people will post on the internet, while cowering in anonymity, of course.

"Battin signed onto many of your briefs..."

False. We had one pair of briefs in two closely related cases before the Supreme Court at the same time where a large group of legislators joined as amici, and Senator Battin happened to be one of them. Two is not "many" by any stretch.

"...and supports CCPOA. Close enough."

To say that the fact that somebody who once joined us as an amicus has also supported another organization is a sufficient basis to tie us to that organization is preposterous. The ACLU and the Rutherford Institute have been co-amici, and Richard Mellon Scaife has supported Rutherford. Would that be sufficient to associate the ACLU with Scaife? By George's logic, it would be, but that is obviously preposterous.

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Aug 28, 2009 7:28:05 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB