Home / Legislation
Received from the American Immigration Lawyers' Association
As many of you know, the chairman of the House Judiciary committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner and Rep. Barney Frank have reached an agreement on the language of HR 1452, the Family Unification Act of 2002. This bipartisan bill is scheduled to be marked up by the full Judiciary Committee tomorrow (Wed., July 17) at 10:00.
WE NEED YOUR HELP ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL
In order to pass this out of committee, we are asking that each of you contact some of the Republican members of the Judiciary and urge them to support this compromise bill. The proposal is supported by Representatives James Sensenbrenner, former chair Henry Hyde (R-IL), and Chris Cannon (R-UT). Four other Republicans are co-sponsors of the bill - Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL); Doug Ose (CA); and Chris Shays (CT)
Although this bill is far less than what we have been asking for, it's passage would be an IMPORTANT victory in our effort to restore some measure of fairness for long-term legal permanent residents. The modest reforms in this bill would simply allow legal permanent residents who have lived legally in the United States for at least five years, and who are facing deportation for an offense that resulted in a sentence of less than four years (or less than 2 years if the offense is classified as a "crime of violence"), to present the facts of their case to an immigration judge to determine whether or not they should be deported from their adopted country. The bill would send an important signal that our laws can be tough AND fair.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. A list of Republicans on the Judiciary are as follows:
- Steve Chabot (R-OH): 202-225-2216
- Bob Barr (R-GA): 202-225-2931
- Mark Green (R-WI): 202-225-5665
- Melissa Hart (R-PA): 202-225-2565
- Darrel Issa (R-CA): 202-225-3906
- Jeff Flake (R-AZ): 202-225-2635
- Randy Forbes (R-VA): 202-225-6365
Thank you,
Ben Johnson
Associate Director of Advocacy
American Immigration Lawyers Assoc.
(202) 216-2437
That's the title of a Washington Post editorial today on the Innocence Protection Act.
A compromise bill has been introduced, settling differences between Senator Patrick Leahy, the bill's original sponsor, and Senators Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter. Senator Leahy's statement on the compromise bill.
The Post points out that the compromise version provides lesser protections than the original bill, which in its view was superior, but that Congress should pass it all the same. Passage in the Senate is by no means certain, even with the compromise version. And a roadblock may lie ahead in the House, notwithstanding that the bill has 240 co-sponsors--why? According to the Post, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Judiciary Committee Chairman, has doubts.
As the Post says, "The bill should pass. Events of the past few years have proven that the American death penalty poses grave and unacceptable risks to innocent people. We oppose the death penalty, but if it is to exist, those risks should be made as small as possible."
So get on the horn, write a letter or fax to your congresspeople today. More information is available at The Justice Project and The Innocence Project.
Joyce Purnick has a good update in today's New York Times on the dissension between Gov. Pataki and the Democratic Assembly on changing the draconian Rockefeller drug laws in New York.
Seems Pataki, as a campaign promise 7 years ago, and in a bid to capture the hispanic vote in NY, promised reforms. But his reforms are not substantial enough. The democratic assembly's proposed changes go much further, and the two sides are scheduled to meet again. Pataki's compromise solution may cause him trouble: relief for the longest sentences now, changes in the future. Not good enough say the dems (and we agree.) If no substantial, across the board reduction is reached, Pataki will have failed to live up to a big campaign promise, and it could cost him in the election.
Among the groups opposed to Pataki's plan: the Mothers of the Disappeared - a group of former offenders and relatives of those still imprisoned.
We posted several legislative notices today on crime-related issues to keep readers informed of recent developments and to encourage you to get involved in the legislative process. It's more serious reading than our regular posts, but we feel it's important stuff.
If you have comments on any of them, or anything else, please e-mail us. If you don't want your comments posted here, just say so in your e-mail.
Oh, and we added an internal search engine today to make it easier for you to find what you are looking for on TalkLeft. It's on the right, just below our recommended links and archives.
Just in from Marijuana Policy Project:
"PROPOSED LAW COULD SUBJECT YOU TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON
Stop the Senate From Banning Marijuana Rallies and Other Events
The Senate is poised to pass legislation that would give federal prosecutors new powers to shut down hemp festivals, marijuana rallies and other events and punish business owners and activists for hosting or promoting them. The proposed law would also potentially subject people to enormous federal sentences if some of their guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue.
It would also effectively make it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
The bill, known as the Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act (RAVE Act), was just introduced in the Senate on June 18th and has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is moving VERY rapidly and could be passed by the Senate as early as this week. While it purports to be aimed at ecstasy and other club drugs, it gives the federal government enormous power to fine and imprison supporters of marijuana legalization, even if they've never smoked marijuana.
ACTIONS TO TAKE
** Fax your Senators today.
** Forward this alert to your friends, family, and co-workers.
** After you fax your Senators, please follow it up with phone calls. Tell them you just faxed them a letter in opposition to S. 2633, the Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act. Tell them that innocent business owners shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their customers. Tell them this bill has dangerous anti-civil liberties provisions that they need to be aware of, and this bill deserves serious debate.
You can contact your Senators through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Here's where you can find out who your Senators are "
Received from Kyle O'Dowd, Legislative Director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL):
The Innocence Protection Act (IPA) now has a total of 26 Senate cosponsors and 238 House cosponsors. The bill, S.486, provides safeguards against wrongful convictions by expanding access to DNA testing and improving the quality of indigent defense in capital cases.
In recent weeks, Senator Leahy has worked closely with other members of the Judiciary Committee to forge a consensus approach to these issues. Those discussions have produced a substitute amendment that the Judiciary Committee will consider at its next executive session tomorrow, July 11th, at 10:00 am (E).
The substitute amendment to the Innocence Protection Act includes four major changes:
1. A new provision that would affirm a Fourteenth Amendment right to DNA testing under certain circumstances.
2. The proposed National Commission on Capital Representation has been eliminated in favor of an approach that would establish a grant program for states to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that accept grant money must meet basic grant compliance standards, which may be enforced through civil suits in federal district court.
3. A new provision that would ensure death row inmates are not executed while their cases are being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. A new provision that would provide student loan forgiveness for prosecutors and public defenders. (Note that this is an authorization only; getting federal funding for the program may be tough.
We'll post a link to the Substitute Amendment as soon as we get it. Right now we only have it as a downloaded pdf. document. If you find it first, please email it to us, thanks.
Update: The Innocence Protection Act is scheduled for markup before the Senate Judiciary committee tomorrow (session starts at 10:00 am).
Why do we need the IPA?
So we never read another opinion like this one -- Burton v. Nixon, July 8, 2002, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: (link to full text)
"Darryl Burtonís habeas petition depicts a troubling scenario. One cannot read the record in this case without developing a nagging suspicion that the wrong man may have been convicted of capital murder and armed criminal action in a Missouri courtroom.
Burton was convicted on the strength of two eyewitness accounts. Since his trial and imprisonment, new evidence has come to light that shakes the limbs of the prosecutionís case. One eyewitness has recanted and admitted perjury. The other eyewitnessís veracity has been questioned by a compatriot who avers it was physically impossible for him to have seen the crime.
A layperson would have little trouble concluding Burton should be permitted to present his evidence of innocence in some forum. Unfortunately, Burtonís claims and evidence run headlong into the thicket of impediments erected by courts and by Congress. Burtonís legal claims permit him no relief, even as the facts suggest he may well be innocent. Mindful of our obligation to apply the law, but with no small degree of reluctance, we deny Burton a writ....
....we have squarely rejected the notion that a prisoner may receive a writ simply because he claims he is innocent. ì©laims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding.î Meadows v. Delo, 99 F.3d 280, 283 (8th Cir.
1996) (quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993)).
For more on the bi-partisan Innocence Protection Act currently before Congress.
The special session of the Colorado legislature called by Governor Owens to fix the state's death penalty law began yesterday. For the past several years, Colorado has been using a three judge system, the kind ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court two weeks ago.
Owens is wisely requesting the legislators go back to a unanimous jury system as that apparently passes Supreme Court muster. Others are suggesting an abolition (our choice) or a non-unanimous jury system (doubtful that would be constitutional.)
Yesterday, a former death row inmate, one of the 101 freed from death row after being found factually innocent, told his story to the legislators.
Two good columns on his testimony: Time is Short for Officals and Inmates by Diane Carman in the Denver Post and Mike Littwin's There is No Such Thing as a Free Ride on Death Row in the Rocky Mountain News.
We don't want a death penalty. But if we have to have one, and apparently we do for now, let's make it as fair as possible by returning to a system where the jury that decided the accused's guilt must thereafter unanimously make the life or death decision.
Dean Schabner of ABC News reports that cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights.
Three of the cities are Berkely, CA, Cambridge, MA and Ann Arbor, MI. Those who spent their college years protesting there thirty years ago are undoubtedly proud to see that these college towns are still fertile hotbeds of skeptism and activism when it comes to the federal government.
City officials in Denver, the largest city to pass the resolution and the home of TalkLeft, said their resolution was a reaffirmation of Denver's commitment to civil liberties. We always knew this was a great place to live...
Why was the public so overwhelmingly in favor of this new law? Our view: Because after September 11, the Bush/Ashcroft Administration did a remarkable job of instilling the fear of terrorism in the heart of every American. What's wrong with the USA Patriot Act? It is an unnecessary piece of legislation that will strip away our civil liberties while not making us any safer from terrorism.
If you are into legalese, you can read the text of the Act yourself here, courtesy of Epic, the Electronic Privacy Information Center .
If you would like to read a section by section analysis of the Act with some critical commentary, you can pay $19 to LexisNexis and order the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001: An Analysis by Stanley Mailman, Jeralyn E. Merritt, Theresa M. B. Van Vliet, Stephen Yale-Loehr. Book Description and On-Line Order Form. Full Disclosure: TalkLeft is a co-author but we don't get royalties or commissions.
Do we really want the FBI monitoring our Fourth of July parades?
Delaware yesterday became the first state to draft specific legislation to try and comply with the Supreme Court's decisions upholding the right to a jury determination of the death penalty (Ring case)and prohibiting execution of the mentally retarded.(Atkins case).
According to our trusted death penalty expert, both bills have problems. "What's of concern is the incremental steps that are being proposed. Rather than embracing the spirit of the decisions and making "safe" bills, they drafted bills that, if passed, may be deemed unconstitutional."
The problem with the Ring bill concerning jury sentencing is that it calls for the jurors to make findings on the existence of aggravating factors, yet keeps the actual sentencing decision in the judge's hand. The jury remains in an advisory role only as to what the penalty should be.
The problems with Delaware's Atkins bill are that it allows the judge to delay the retardation finding until the sentencing phase and increases the defendant's burden of proof on retardation from a "preponderance of the evidence" standard to the higher "clear and convincing" standard. Also, once the defense files notice that he intends to raise mental retardation as an issue (which he must at least 90 days before trial), a mandatory court evaluation is ordered, which threatens the defendant's constitutional right to remain silent and not incriminate himself.
The two bills passed the Delaware Senate yesterday, and will now go to the house.
In Colorado, Governor Owens has called for a special legislative session to draft new legislation.
Received from the folks at the Marijuana Policy Project today....
"MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- Without comment or fanfare, on June 21 Gov. Howard Dean (D) signed legislation setting up a state task force to study how Vermont should go about protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest. While the measure provides no immediate protection to seriously ill Vermonters who need marijuana to relieve
their symptoms, the new law sets the wheels in motion for solid patient protection next year....
The measure, S. 193, establishes a task force "to investigate and assess options for legal protections which will allow
seriously ill Vermonters to use medical marijuana without facing criminal prosecution under Vermont law."
Here's the Text of the bill in PDF format
Help out the Innocence Protection Act. Fax your senator and congressperson Monday and Tuesday.
The Innocence Protection Act (IPA - S 486 / HR 912) and other death penalty reform proposals will be the subject of back-to-back hearings before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on Tuesday, June 18, 2002.
This important legislation provides critical new safeguards in capital cases by:
Ensuring convicted offenders can request DNA testing on evidence from their case that is in the government's possession to prove their innocence.
Helping states provide professional and experienced lawyers at every stage of a death penalty case.
Requiring states to inform juries of all sentencing options, including the option to sentence a defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of.
Providing those who are proven innocent after an unjust incarceration some measure of compensation.
Making sure the public has more reliable and detailed information regarding the administration of the nation's capital punishment laws.
For more on this, visit The Justice Project
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |
