Tag Archives: Gov. Jerry Brown

California

Gov. Brown: Side With Fellow Governors, Not Ice Director And Anti-Immigrant Hate Groups

California Governor Jerry Brown has until the end of the month to decide if he’s going to sign the TRUST Act into law, and his decision to sign the bill or veto it will tell us a lot about whose side he is on. California’s bill would be the largest effort yet to restore the trust between police and immigrant communities that has been damaged by the federal “Secure Communities” program in recent years.  But Brown is under tremendous pressure from ICE Director John Morton  to support this failed program and help the government deport thousands of immigrants who’ve committed no crimes–the same immigrants President Obama has vowed to legalize.

In a little-publicized letter released earlier this month, ICE Director John Morton not only praised the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a designated hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, but also revealed his not-so-subtle pressure tactics against state and local governments who feel that the federal Secure Communities program has actually made their communities less safe.

As Frank Sharry, Executive Director here at America’s Voice said:

Why is an appointed official in the Obama Administration consorting with a recognized hate group? John Morton’s love letter to FAIR is deeply disturbing, not only because he is treating them like a partner but also because of the tactics it reveals.  ICE is strong-arming state and local governments who have concerns about this program, instead of working with them to address their needs.

A quick refresher: the TRUST Act, which recently passed both houses of the California legislature, seeks to restore the public trust police need to protect communities by addressing some of the problems with the federal Secure Communities program. While this program was supposed to focus resources on deporting serious criminals, it has instead turned routine police work into an immigration status check and led to record deportations of immigrants, including hundreds of thousands who are not criminals.  Under “Secure Communities,” undocumented persons are often detained by police for very minor violations, such as driving without a license, and end up in federal hands on the path to deportation. In California alone, more than 75,000 immigrants have been deported since Secure Communities began there in 2009, and more than half of those immigrants were either convicted of no crime or convicted only of minor offenses. The TRUST Act is designed to focus that program on its stated goals, and ensure that immigrants who haven’t committed a crime are not afraid of contact with the police.

So, who will Gov. Brown side with? In addition to FAIR on the extremist side, you’ll find Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As we’ve noted, in practice there is little difference between Secure Communities and Arizona’s SB 1070.  That notorious law, which basically sanctions racial-profiling, attacks immigrants by making local cops turn them over to the federal government for deportation-destroying the trust between immigrants and local police. If Brown vetoes the TRUST Act, he’ll be in sync not only with FAIR, but also with Arizona’s Governor Brewer as well.

Or, Brown could show leadership and make his state the “anti-Arizona”. He could stand with his fellow Governors Andrew Cuomo (NY), Deval Patrick (MA) and Pat Quinn (IL) who sought to end relationships with Morton’s ICE program because of the serious problems wreaked upon the immigrant community. Those Governors recognized that the federal program was undermining local law enforcement and stood up to ICE. Even President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, now the Mayor of Chicago, is supporting a city ordinance, similar to the TRUST Act, to protect his city’s immigrant population from Secure Communities.  In his own state, Brown would not only be aligned with fellow governors in states with substantial immigrant populations, but also with more than 100 immigrant rights groups, police chiefs, and mayors, who are seeking to restore the public trust police need for community safety by supporting the TRUST Act.

Said Sharry:

Governor Brown has a choice to make — and that choice will impact immigrant communities throughout California. If he vetoes the TRUST Act, Brown will find himself in lockstep with Jan Brewer, John Morton, and FAIR. That’s out of character for Brown — and for California.  By signing TRUST, Brown will ally himself with immigrants and follow the lead of Governors Cuomo, Quinn and Patrick.  He’ll also keep California on the right path.

Budget

Revised Budget Reaffirms Realignment, Leaves Out Sentencing Reform

By Allen Hopper, ACLU of Northern California

The revised California budget is out and sentencing reform is, well, left out. In his revised budget Gov. Brown recommitted to his criminal justice realignment plan, but didn’t include any sentencing reforms that would help ensure that the plan is effective and affordable. Realignment reserves state prison for people with the most serious offenses and redirects people with low-level offenses to local control. This is a step in the right direction but it leaves a key piece of the puzzle missing: we should convert minor offenses from felonies to misdemeanors so that the punishment and its associated taxpayer cost fit the crime.

Two reforms alone would save the state hundreds of millions annually while keeping communities safe: making possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use a misdemeanor instead of a felony and making low-level, non-violent property offenses–like vandalism or writing a bad check–a misdemeanor. These sentencing reforms also help lower the cost of realignment. By making low-level offenses misdemeanors instead of felonies, we decrease costs because sentences are shorter and court costs are lower.  

California spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year locking people up for minor offenses when they pose no threat to public safety. We can save money and keep our communities safe by reserving felony sentences for serious crimes. In addition to their high costs, felonies should be reserved for serious crimes because they impose lifetime obstacles to employment, housing, education, and public benefits.

We recently asked voters what they thought, and the results were striking. A solid majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents from every corner of the state believe that too many people are imprisoned and that penalties for minor offenses are too harsh. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of likely voters support reducing the penalty for simple possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use. (We commissioned the poll along with Drug Policy Alliance and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The full results and analysis are online.)  

At the end of the day, the time should fit the crime. (Just a few weeks ago a man was charged with a felony after stealing a $2.95 Godiva candy.) Realignment is a promising good first step. The legislature and Governor have recognized, through the realignment plan, that low-level crimes don’t merit sending people to state prison. Now, let’s realign our sentencing laws: felony sentences should be reserved for serious offenses that truly threaten public safety.  

Uncategorized

California Ignores Obvious Budget Solution: Cut the Death Penalty

California’s new governor Jerry Brown confronted the state’s dire budget crisis this week when he released his budget proposal. True to his word, the proposal contains hard cuts to social services across the board, ensuring that California’s most vulnerable will have an even tougher time staying healthy and making ends meet.

He was slightly less true to his word, though, when it came to his oft-repeated slogan that "everything is on the table." At least one overfunded, broken government program was allowed to keep its bloated budget without a single cut: the state’s billion-dollar death penalty.

Did the governor miss this massive drain on funds, or is there a sacred cow in California’s budget after all?  Maybe he can be excused on the grounds that there’s no "death penalty" line item anywhere in the budget. But, of course, the reason there’s no "death penalty" line item is that the $1 billion the death penalty will cost over the next five years is hidden throughout a half-dozen judicial and corrections budget items — any one of which could be trimmed by the governor. Let’s go down the line:

  • There’s the $1 million per death penalty trial over and above the cost of non-death penalty murder trials, which comes from county prosecutors’ budgets.
  • Then there’s the $63 million per year extra spent housing people on death row and another $60 million spent on their appeals, again over and above the cost of housing and appeals for life without parole. Those costs are tucked away in the budgets for corrections, the Supreme Court, the attorney general’s office and public defense.
  • Finally, the kicker is the brand new death row facility we’re about to build that will cost $400 million.

Over five years, that tally comes to just over $1 billion.

Now, repealing the death penalty in California can only be done at the ballot box, but defunding the whole system can be done with a few strokes of the governor’s pen: just ask any senior citizen, recipient of in-home medical care, or single working parent. They’ll tell you how powerful that pen can be when it comes to cutting government programs.

Alternatively, if the governor converted the sentences of California’s more than 700 residents of death row to life without parole, he’d save that whole billion dollars in one swoop: no more extra housing costs, no more extra appeals costs, no more new death row. That’s a lot of money that could go towards much-needed programs and services.

And it’s not as if the people of the state are clamoring for more death penalty spending over other issues, like, education, crime prevention, health care, or social safety nets. While Gov. Brown may have assumed that the death penalty really is precious to California voters, his own election proved otherwise. Even after Meg Whitman saturated the airwaves bashing Brown for his anti-death penalty record, Californians still elected the guy. We also voted down a Senate candidate who campaigned on being pro-death penalty, and elected an anti-death penalty attorney general, Kamala Harris, over a prosecutor known nationwide for his aggressive pursuit of death sentences.

Why did we vote in Jerry Brown again? Maybe we’re ready for some realistic and pragmatic change. Maybe we’re ready to prioritize victims, community safety, and health above executions. Maybe we’re ready to Cut This. Send Gov. Brown a message that if he’s going to cut anything from California’s budget, he should cut the death penalty.