Female senators push to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) (Elaine Thompson - AP)
Keying up what could become the next chapter in a weeks-long fight over women’s rights, six Democratic women senators — and one of their Republican female colleagues — urged colleagues Thursday to quickly reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
The landmark 1994 measure is up for renewal this year and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he expects to hold a vote in the coming weeks. Democrats see the debate over the bill and potential amendments as an opening to continue accusing Republicans of “waging war” on women’s rights. In recent weeks, the

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has used the issue — and the 11 Democratic women running in Senate races this year — to raise money from supporters.

The bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last month on a party-line vote after Republicans opposed new elements of the legislation that provide protections to immigrants and same-sex couples and raised concerns about accounting for the effectiveness of federal grants it authorizes.

Republicans hope to introduce amendments to the law and some of the seven women who spoke Thursday said they would welcome those proposals.

“This one shouldn’t be about politics. Protecting women against violence shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

But Democrats are making it a partisan issue, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) charged Thursday.

Responding to reports that Senate Democrats hoped to slow debate on a bipartisan jobs measure and capi­tal­ize on the reauthorization of the domestic violence measure, McConnell said Democrats were
“manufacturing fights — and 30-second television ads” instead of approving a jobs bill.

“If you’re looking for the reason Congress has a 9 percent approval rating, this is it,” McConnell said.

Indeed, Congress remains deeply unpopular, but women view it more favorably than men. A higher percentage of women approve of congressional Democrats, 39 percent, than Republicans, 26 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. A separate survey by pollsters Peter Hart and Bill McInturff found recently that 51 percent of women favored Democratic control of Congress; only 36 percent wanted to see the Republicans in charge.

On Thursday the seven women urged their colleagues to join them in reauthorizing a law that expanded sentencing guidelines and provides billions of dollars in funding to law enforcement agencies, municipal agencies and nonprofit groups to help the victims of domestic violence.

During a series of speeches by the women, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) directly addressed the concerns regarding immigrants and same-sex couples: “If the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence any less real? Is the danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I don’t think so. If a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, sorry, you’re illegal you don’t deserve any protection?”

Feinstein added: “When you call the police in America, they come, regardless of who you are.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — one of four GOP cosponsors, but the only one to speak about it publicly Thursday — said she believes the Senate should be primarily focused on economic issues but that she hopes for “an overwhelmingly bipartisan deal” to reauthorize the law.

“This is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it,” Murkowski said.

By Ed O'Keefe for Washington Post

97 California Organizations Demand Immediate Foreclosure Policy Changes from FHFA

As public frustration with the Federal Housing Finance Agency builds, 97 community groups have submitted a detailed comment letter to Acting Director Ed DeMarco demanding changes to FHFA’s foreclosure policies, or his immediate resignation. The 97 groups are united in their concern about homeowners and tenants being displaced by FHFA’s damaging policies. Yesterday, the United States Senate Banking Committee heard more flawed justifications about these policies from Mr. DeMarco.

Mr. DeMarco should drop his script, and start listening to the collective voice of his critics

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, under the guidance of Acting Director Ed DeMarco, has failed to prioritize the needs of homeowners who are struggling to make their mortgage payments. As the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FHFA controls nearly 60% of all home loans in the United States. The $26 billion Attorneys General settlement requires banks to provide $18 billion in principal reduction, HAMP has incentivized principal reduction, but until Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac start allowing principal reduction, the majority of American homeowners will be left out to dry. It’s up to Mr. DeMarco to help them.

Nearly a quarter of all American households are underwater. That number is even higher in California, where over a third of all mortgaged households are underwater. Mr. DeMarco recently admitted that he has never spoken to a foreclosure victim or someone at risk of foreclosure. This damning admission reveals how out of touch he is with the communities who are suffering from the foreclosure crisis.

In the letter, the 97 groups urge Mr. DeMarco to put a pause on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac foreclosures until FHFA formalizes policies to:

1. Reduce Principal. FHFA should allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer loan modifications containing principal reduction down to market value. In the California Reinvestment Coalition’s February 2012 survey of 75 housing counselors who assist thousands of Californians a month, over 40% of respondents noted that banks sometimes or often reduce principal where they own the loan in question. Although the banks see the utility of principal reduction, the GSEs never reduce principal.
2. Stop the Dual Track. Affected homeowners and their advocates continue to rank dual track as one of the most pernicious and prevalent practices that frustrates efforts to halt avoidable foreclosures. FHFA should refuse to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac servicers from continuing the foreclosure process while borrowers are negotiating for a loan modification.
3. Offer Tenants Long-Term Leases. According to Tenants Together, tenants make up approximately 38% of California households impacted by the foreclosure crisis. Tenants living in homes that go into foreclosure are perhaps the most vulnerable of stakeholders. These families are often completely unaware that their landlord is unable to pay the mortgage and at risk of foreclosure. FHFA should require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer tenants residing in foreclosed properties the option of a two-year lease if they wish to remain in their homes.

The recent $26 billion Attorneys General settlement provides some relief for homeowners, but Fannie and Freddie borrowers are completely on their own. The majority of the loans in distress in California are owned by FHFA, and until they change their policies, more Californians will continue to suffer. This calls for immediate changes to FHFA policies, and strong state legislation that protects and relieves California homeowners from irresponsible practices.

If Mr. DeMarco cannot commit to making these policy changes, the groups have called for his immediate resignation.

By California Progress Report

Unlikely Advocates For Teen Killers: Victims' Families

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about the fate of 2,500 offenders who were sentenced as teenagers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Seventy-nine of them were 13 or 14 when they committed their crimes.

Many prosecutors and family members of victims spoke out about the need to keep the sentences in place.

But in a small building cafeteria, just a few blocks from the Supreme Court, a different group of family members quietly came together. These were the families of teenagers who committed horrible crimes — and sitting next to them were the families of victims.

One man's mother had been killed by four teenage girls. Another man's son was killed by a teenage boy. Yet all of them want the court to find life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional.

It's not a group you often hear about. Many in the room said they frequently are unwilling to share their feelings about the issue because they have been accused of not missing their loved ones enough. On this day, there was enough sorrow in the room to fill an afternoon — but also enough forgiveness.

Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth.

Mary Johnson and Oshea Israel wait outside the Supreme Court for Tuesday's hearing on whether it is unconstitutional to sentence teenagers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. When he was 16, Israel shot and killed Johnson's son.

Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth

Mary Johnson and Oshea Israel wait outside the Supreme Court for Tuesday's hearing on whether it is unconstitutional to sentence teenagers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. When he was 16, Israel shot and killed Johnson's son.

'He Was An Animal'
Mary Johnson said it took her more than a decade to get here. She was at work in Minnesota 19 years ago when her sister-in-law called and told her her 20-year-old son Laramiun had been shot and killed at a party. Three days later, a detective called and said police had picked up a 16-year-old boy named Oshea Israel.

"He was an animal," Johnson says. "I wanted him charged as an adult with first-degree murder, imprisoned for the rest of his life. I mean I hated Oshea."

Sitting off to the side of the group, Johnson smiles and looks directly across the table — at Oshea Israel. Asked if he killed Laramiun, Israel says quietly: "Yes, I did. Yes, I did. I was 16. He was 20. Neither one of us wanted to back down. And me being foolish enough to think that I held the most power just because I had a gun. He and I could have been best friends had we just taken the time to communicate."

Two Mothers Meeting
The families came together at the behest of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, a nonprofit that seeks to bring families and sometimes even perpetrators to the same table.
But how Oshea Israel and Mary Johnson ended up sitting here is mostly a testament to Johnson.
Israel was initially facing life in prison without parole, but the judge lessened the charge and sentenced him to 25 years, most of which he served. He got a few years off for good behavior. It was a long time since that night at the party. He says as a 16 year old, none of it really registered.
"All I could do was shut down and numb myself to it," Israel says. "It wasn't until years later that I started to make that connection, like — Wow, I really did do this. I was responsible for someone losing their life."

For a decade, Johnson struggled with grief. Then one day, she read a passage in a book about two mothers who had lost sons.

The mothers were angels. One of them said she would have taken her child's place on the cross if she could have.

"The other mother fell on one knee and said, 'Oh, well, you are she — the mother of Christ," Johnson says. "And the mother of Christ lifted her up, kissed the tear off a cheek and said, 'Tell me of your son, so I may grieve with you.' And she said, 'My son is Judas.'"
Johnson began to wonder if she could meet Israel's mother, but she knew in order to do that, she had to meet him.

Laying The Foundation
Early one morning in 2005, Johnson showed up at the Minnesota State Correctional Center in Stillwater.

Israel says he was ready if Johnson wanted to yell at him or even hit him. But what she said instead surprised him.

"I was like, 'You don't know me. You didn't know my son. My son didn't know you. We need to lay our foundation. We need to get to know one another,'" Johnson says. "And that's what we did."
They talked for two hours. Johnson had planned to visit Israel only once, but a moment at the end of the meeting seemed to bind them together: Israel asked Johnson if he could hug her.

"I felt like she just offered me her forgiveness," he says. "I had nothing else to offer her; at least I can show her some compassion."They met in the middle and embraced.

"I tell you I had something going on in my feet physically, moving and stirring in my feet, and it just moved up and up," Johnson says. "I felt this whatever leave me. I knew that all that hatred and animosity and anger and the bitterness ... I had inside for 12 years was over."
Coming Face To Face

Theirs is not a surprising story in this cafeteria. Each of a dozen tables held families of perpetrators and families of victims.

Ed Andrieski/AP

Sharletta Evans holds a photograph of her 3-year-old son Casson in Aurora, Colo., last July. Casson was killed in a drive-by shooting by two 15-year-old boys.

At one table, Sharletta Evans tells the group that 17 years ago, her 3-year-old son was killed in a drive-by shooting by two 15-year-olds.

"Casson Xavier Evans, that was my son's name," she says. "His nickname was Biscuit."
Across from her, Mona Schlautman nods her head. Her son was killed by an adult and a teenage accomplice.

"I knew he did not get a fair trial, but I didn't care at that time," Schlautman says. "I was just glad that he had been caught and locked up."

It takes a minute before Esa Mathis speaks up. Her son Ralph is serving life without parole for drug racketeering.

"My son, the seeds of wrong decisions were sewn a long time before those decisions were made," she says. "By the time my son was 15 years old, not only did he not have a father, but I had been married and divorced three times because of my own brokenness and not knowing how messed up I was. I had to own a part of that, you know?"

Trading Places
Everyone in the room wanted the teens to pay a price for their crimes, but for every story of trauma the victims' families shared, the teens' families seemed to describe an equal number of stories of trauma.

For many years Evans didn't care that the 15-year-olds who killed her son had hard lives, but that changed when she ran into the grandmother of one of the boys at a food bank where they were both volunteering. Evans says she realized either one could have been the other.

"Taking a look at my surviving son, who was 15, what if that was him?" she says. "If ... he took a life, would I want to see him spend the rest of his life in prison? And the answer was no."
Many say people don't understand that they're not trying to let the teens off the hook. What they want is for the teens to have a chance to one day make amends; getting to that place has brought them peace.

"The fact that my son died in my own arms and covered me with his own blood," Evans says, "I suffered. It wasn't nothing to take lightly the fact that he was only 3. He never made it to kindergarten. That only makes it harder. So no one can judge how much I've suffered."

Retribution And Rehabilitation
In the next few months, the Supreme Court will rule whether life without parole can be given to teenagers. Experts have argued that teenagers' brains are less developed — they are more impulsive and less able to weigh the consequences of their actions. But prosecutors say the sentence is an important tool.

"Thirty-nine states passed laws to provide that in the rarest of cases, life without parole for a juvenile can be a possibility," says Scott Burns, head of the National District Attorneys Association. Burns wrote a brief to the court arguing the sentence should not be overturned.

"If they were repealing all these laws, that would show ... a consensus the other way," he says, "but that's not happening in America."

Asked if he thinks a teenager's ability to change and express remorse is worth something to society, he said: "Well, that's the debate, isn't it? Is it the goal to rehabilitate someone to see if they change? Or is the goal to do justice for the victims and others?"

But for Mary Johnson, rehabilitation is retribution. She says she knows this because she sees it every day; not long after Israel was released from prison, he rented the apartment next door.
"I'm in his business," Johnson says, laughing.

But Israel says he doesn't mind. "I really know she's in my business out of care and concern, like she really wants to make sure I [am] the best person I can," he says. "She doesn't want to see me suffer. Just knowing that I caused her pain and she is the person who protects me from it, it's like — wow."
"He's suffered enough for what he's done," Johnson says. "Young people deserve to have a second chance. We all deserve to have a second chance, I believe."

Every day Israel checks in on Johnson. They spend their weekends together.
Johnson looks across the table at a man, no longer a child, who two decades ago killed her 20-year-old boy. To me, she says, Israel is like a son.

                                       

 

Justices’ Ruling Expands Rights of Accused in Plea Bargains

WASHINGTON — Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective lawyers during plea negotiations, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a pair of 5-to-4 decisions that vastly expanded judges’ supervision of the criminal justice system.
     

The decisions mean that what used to be informal and unregulated deal making is now subject to new constraints when bad legal advice leads defendants to reject favorable plea offers.

“Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The right to adequate assistance of counsel cannot be defined or enforced without taking account of the central role plea bargaining takes in securing convictions and determining sentences.”

Justice Kennedy, who more often joins the court’s conservative wing in ideologically divided cases, was in this case in a coalition with the court’s four more liberal members. That alignment has sometimes arisen in recent years in cases that seemed to offend Justice Kennedy’s sense of fair play.

The consequences of the two decisions are hard to predict because, as Justice Antonin Scalia said in a pair of dissents he summarized from the bench, “the court leaves all of this to be worked out in further litigation, which you can be sure there will be plenty of.”

Claims of ineffective assistance at trial are commonplace even though trials take place under a judge’s watchful eye. Challenges to plea agreements based on misconduct by defense lawyers will presumably be common as well, given how many more convictions follow guilty pleas and the fluid nature of plea negotiations.

Justice Scalia wrote that expanding constitutional protections to that realm “opens a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence,” calling it “plea-bargaining law.”

Scholars agreed about its significance.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in these two cases constitute the single greatest revolution in the criminal justice process since Gideon v. Wainwright provided indigents the right to counsel,” said Wesley M. Oliver, a law professor at Widener University, referring to the landmark 1963 decision.

In the context of trials, the Supreme Court has long established that defendants were entitled to new trials if they could show that incompetent work by their lawyers probably affected the outcome. The Supreme Court has also required lawyers to offer competent advice in urging defendants to give up their right to a trial by accepting a guilty plea. Those cases hinged on the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

The cases decided Wednesday answered a harder question: What is to be done in cases in which a lawyer’s incompetence caused the client to reject a favorable plea bargain?

Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, acknowledged that allowing the possibility of do-overs in cases involving foregone pleas followed by convictions presented all sorts of knotty problems. But he said the realities of American criminal justice required to the court to take action.

Some 97 percent of convictions in federal courts were the result of guilty pleas. In 2006, the last year for which data was available, the corresponding percentage in state courts was 94.

“In today’s criminal justice system,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”

Quoting from law review articles, Justice Kennedy wrote that plea bargaining “is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.” He added that “longer sentences exist on the books largely for bargaining purposes.”

One of the cases, Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444, involved Galin E. Frye, who was charged with driving without a license in 2007. A prosecutor offered to let him plead guilty in exchange for a 90-day sentence.

But Mr. Frye’s lawyer at the time, Michael Coles, failed to tell his client of the offer. After it expired, Mr. Frye pleaded guilty without a plea bargain, and a judge sentenced him to three years.

A state appeals court reversed his conviction but said it did not have the power to order the state to reduce the charges against him. That left Mr. Frye roughly where he started, with the options of going to trial or pleading guilty without the benefit of a plea deal.

Justice Kennedy wrote that Mr. Frye should have been allowed to try to prove that he would have accepted the original offer. But that was only the beginning of what Mr. Frye would have to show to get relief. He would also have to demonstrate, Justice Kennedy wrote, that prosecutors would not have later withdrawn the offer had he accepted it, as they were allowed to do under state law. Finally, Justice Kennedy went on, Mr. Frye would have to show that the court would have accepted the agreement.

A version of this article appeared in print on March 22, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Justices Expand Right Of Accused In Plea Bargains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/supreme-court-says-defendants-have-right-to-good-lawyers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120322

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 21, 2012

Trio of Bills Take Aim at “Buy Here Pay Here” Car Dealerships

by Damien Newton

A trio of state legislators have introduced legislation aimed at “Buy Here Pay Here” dealerships in California.  These dealerships, where used cars are sold at a marked up price with loans that have abnormally high interest rates, are often used by people of lesser means as a last resort to get a car.   These dealerships not only sell cars, but provide their own financing, creating two ways to benefit from the overpriced sale of a used car.

Last year, Ken Bensinger at the Los Angeles Times wrote a three part series exposing some of the business practices of these dealerships that create extra hardship for disadvantaged car buyers.  This year, he has continued to follow-up on the issue as these bills were introduced and begin to move in the legislature.  Here is a brief explanation of each piece of legislation:

A.B. 1447, Introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-LA)

A.B. 1447 would actually change three parts of the business strategies of Buy Here Pay Here dealerships.  First, dealers would be required to post the selling cost of the vehicle on the body of the vehicle.  This would prevent dealers from setting prices at the negotiating table based on their estimate of what the seller could afford.  The legislation also prohibits Buy Here Pay Here dealers from harassing references for the buyer after the sale, requiring cash payments in person from drivers and disabling and tracking cars with GPS systems of payments are late.


“This industry preys on people who have no other options for getting a car,” said Feuer.  “In many parts of our state, auto travel is the only way for parents to get to work on time, or to pick their kids up from school.  Instead of helping Californians get back on their feet by providing needed transportation, these dealers are promoting an endless cycle of debt and joblessness.”


Critics of Feuer’s legislation either argue that instead of passing laws to regulate the entire industry the state should focus on supporting existing laws or that the law is written so broadly that it applies to legitimate car dealerships who include LoJack with their car sales.  Bensinger talked to several opponents in his piece for the Los Angeles Times on A.B. 1447.


S.B. 956, Introduced by Senator Ted Lieu (D-LA)


Senator Lieu’s legislation focuses on the lending practices of the dealerships instead of the car sales.  By handling financing in house but being licensed as a car dealer, Buy Here Pay Here dealerships were able to get around many state financing laws and consumer protections.  Lieu’s legislation would:

• Impose regulations on dealers offering Buy Here, Pay Here installment loans by requiring them to obtain a California Finance Lender’s license, which would provide consumers with an array of protections.
• Limit used-car installment loans to a maximum 17.25 percent interest, which would give California the strongest cap in the nation.
• Change the way Buy Here Pay Here used car dealers are able to repossess vehicles to include grace periods and make it easier for buyers to reinstate a repossessed car.

“Unscrupulous dealers are pushing these types of previously unregulated loans to sell cars for far beyond market value, at interest rates as high as 30 percent,” explains Lieu.  ”They need to either find a conscience or display a sign: Rip-offs R Us.”


Representatives of the industry are arguing that Lieu’s legislation will make it difficult for dealers to sell to people with bad credit.  To here their argument, read the bottom of Bensinger’s article on S.B. 956.


A.B. 1534, Introduced by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont)


Wieckowski’s legislation seeks to reduce the amount that dealers would mark-up their vehicles by arming buyers with information outlining the real value of the vehicle.  A.B. 1534 would require dealers list a value for the car based on a third-party valuation source, such as Kelley Blue Book or the NADA Guide.  The value would take into account the car’s model year, condition and mileage.  While it would provide knowledge to the buyer, it wouldn’t place any restrictions on what the car could be sold for.


This legislation is receiving the same argument from Buy Here Pay Here representatives, that any restrictions on their industry will reduce people of lesser-means’ ability to have access to a car.  It’s also receiving some more credible blowback from dealers worried that the wording of the law would require all dealers of used vehicles to be constantly updating stickers and signage to reflect the new prices.


The automobile industry is expected to weigh in on all three pieces of legislation, but all three bill authors remain optimistic that some legislation regulating this vampire industry will make it to the Governor’s desk.  That’s the value of having a paper with the reach of the Times shine the light on an industry that is doing more harm than good, no lobbying effort will ever be able to turn that light back off. 

by Damien Newton for latimes.com

San Bernardino cuts record 251 certificated employees

	SAN BERNARDINO - The school board voted after midnight Wednesday to eliminate a record 251 positions from next year's budget. The lion's share of those jobs are elementary school teachers, with the equivalent of 115 full-time K-6 teaching positions cut from the San Bernardino City Unified School District's 2012-13 budget. Board members voted to send preliminary layoff notices to certificated employees - an employee classification that consists of positions such as teachers and counselors - so they could make a legally required March 15 deadline, but they hope many of those positions will be restored if the budget outlook later improves. "This was not why I ran for this position, and we're not taking pleasure, any one of us, in what we're doing," board member Bobbie Perong said. "I'm just hoping for a better time when we can say we're adding teachers, not taking them away." That depends on union negotiations, among other things, but districts are often able to bring back many employees who are initially told their job will be cut. The board sent layoff notices to 210 teachers this time last year - a record at the time - and brought back 88 by June. Wednesday's cut stemmed from a proposal approved two weeks ago that entailed eliminating 136 certificated positions along with 103 other jobs as part of an effort to cut nearly $22 million from the budget. But those 136 jobs ballooned to 251 because of changing projections since the last board meeting, including smaller- than-expected enrollment. "I was not expecting a number this large," board President Barbara Flores told Harold J. Vollkommer, who prepared the recommendation. "When I was reading this, I was calling you names." Vollkommer, the assistant superintendent of human resources, said he expected the number to decrease significantly by mid-April as employees accept early retirement packages and to further decline later. But he added himself to the list of people unhappy with the decision. "When I have to do this work, I call myself names," he said. Some of the eliminated positions are currently unfilled. Rebecca Harper, president of the San Bernardino Teachers Association, said she didn't have a concrete proposal to save money another way, but said layoffs would hurt students. "SBTA stands firmly against any layoffs," she said. "We would not want to see any of them happen." By San Bernardino County Sun

Don't have a job? California bill would keep employers from screening you out

The message in some job advertisements these days is pretty blunt: Don't bother sending a resume if you're not bringing home a paycheck already.

The ads list current or recent employment as an eligibility requirement, a screen to narrow the pool of candidates in a rocky economy that often leads to dozens of applicants for a single job. 

A random search of online job listings last year by the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit advocacy group, found 150 ads nationwide that excluded applicants based on employment status. Most of them said "must be currently employed," the group reported.

"So many people are unemployed for such long periods of time that this kind of discrimination has a devastating impact," said Maurice Emsellem, NELP's policy co-director.

New Jersey has passed a law banning such advertisements, federal legislation is pending, and a newly proposed California bill, Assembly Bill 1450, would prohibit discriminating against the jobless in hiring.

"It's the same as excluding a particular religion or minority group – it's wrong," said Assemblyman Michael Allen, a Santa Rosa Democrat, who is the author of AB 1450.

College graduates, military personnel and women returning to the workforce are among groups of people affected by a blanket exclusion, Allen said.

Opponents of AB 1450 counter that lawmakers have no business interfering in companies' internal affairs and that Allen's measure could prompt a flood of frivolous complaints that would be costly to investigate and difficult to prosecute.

"The Legislature shouldn't be running their business for them," said Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee.

Opponents say AB 1450 is a one-size-fits-all solution, and that an applicant's current or recent employment can be critical in various high-tech or other jobs requiring technology, software or skill sets that change rapidly.

Roger Niello, president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said barring businesses from disqualifying the jobless could tie a company's hands in the kinds of questions asked during job interviews.

When an applicant's résumé shows a gap in employment, it is natural to ask why, Niello said.

"If that law passed, you'd really be getting into risky territory any time you asked any question like that," he said.

Niello said he does not agree with jobless-need-not-apply advertising, but added, "I think it's absolutely inappropriate to say they can't."

Allen said his bill would not bar employers from requiring certain levels of experience, training or education – it simply would require decisions to be based on merit, not joblessness.

Allen's bill would not permit victims to sue. Violations would be subject to fines of $1,000 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for each one thereafter. Complaints about employers would be investigated by the state labor commissioner, while accusations about employment agencies would be handled by city attorneys or the state attorney general's office, Allen said.

Potential costs of AB 1450 have not been estimated.

Eric Steele, a 46-year-old Sacramentan who has been unemployed for three years, said the state's unemployment rate, currently more than 11 percent, would never fall if companies hired only people who hold jobs.

"It's us that don't have a job," Steele said. "We need a job."

Sonja Tyler, 41, said that joblessness does not signal incompetence. "I think it's unfair," she said. "Most people wouldn't be looking for a job if they had a job."

Several Republican lawmakers said they have not seen Allen's new bill, but conceptually, they don't like it.

Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, said that current employment can indicate that someone has the commitment and social skills needed to justify a company's investment. It's a valid issue to consider, he said.

"(Employers have told me) that 'we can teach skills to an employee, but we don't know if we can teach them respect for authority, the ability to work well with others, basic work habits, or the ability to show up on time and be reliable,' " Hagman said.

Allen said his bill will fill a vacuum in state law, which does not cite joblessness as a protected class against discrimination.

Even if AB 1450 gets derailed, some legal experts say companies should think twice about automatically disqualifying the unemployed.

Martha West, professor emerita at UC Davis School of Law, said lawsuits could allege discrimination against people of color, who have significantly higher unemployment rates than whites.

"It's a most peculiar kind of response to an economic crisis, to stop hiring people who don't have jobs," said attorney Mike Herald of the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

By Sacbee.com

A Simple Solution To The Serious Problem

A Simple Solution To The Serious Problem Of Jail and Prison Overcrowding


By Theshia Naidoo, Alice Huffman, Jakada Imani and Allen Hopper


The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different outcome. California has been doing the same thing with drug users for decades, while wasting billions of dollars and wrecking lives in the process. Not only have we flooded our courts, jails and prisons with felony offenses for low-level drug users, we have created barriers to getting their lives back on track.

Senate Bill 1506, introduced last week by State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), changes that. SB 1506 would reclassify drug possession for personal use from a felony to a misdemeanor, thereby reducing the potential sentences for these offenses from a maximum of three years imprisonment to a maximum of one year in county jail.

This simple, yet bold bill is a sharp break from the policies that helped create California’s prison overcrowding crisis. Prosecuting personal possession of drugs as a felony subjects thousands of low-level offenders to lengthy sentences and lifetime consequences. This bill recognizes that this approach simply does not work.


Federal law, the District of Columbia, and 13 other states all penalize personal possession of controlled substances as a misdemeanor. This change will align California with federal law and a growing number of other states.


Felony sentences for personal drug possession disproportionately impact communities of color and far outweigh the harm they seek to address. The current classification of these offenses as felonies places enormous burdens on individuals, families, communities, and the state as a whole. And the burden falls most heavily on low-income people of color. Study after study has found that there are far more white Americans using drugs on any given day, but our courts, jails and prisons are crowded primarily with Black and Latino Americans arrested for drugs.


There is no evidence that lengthy sentences reduce recidivism for drug offenders. In fact, researchers have linked harsher penalties with higher recidivism rates as opposed to alternatives like probation. There is similarly no evidence that harsh penalties for drug possession have any effect on rates of drug use or dependency. Several of the states that treat simple possession as a misdemeanor have lower rates of illicit drug use than California.


Lengthy felony drug sentences are a significant issue for California's counties, which are currently confronting jail capacity problems. Many counties are contemplating out-of-county transfer of inmates or even new jail construction (which our state cannot afford) to address possible overcrowding. Changing personal drug possession to a misdemeanor will not only reduce the length of time a person will be incarcerated in county jails, it will also give counties more flexibility in responding to these offenses. It will make implementing realignment more affordable for the counties, freeing up money for rehabilitation, drug treatment, and other proven strategies for reducing crime and improving public safety and health.


A felony conviction haunts someone for the rest of his or her life. Such convictions exact a devastating cost beyond the formal sentence, many lasting a lifetime, including barriers to employment, housing, education, and public benefits needed to successfully reintegrate into the community. In other words, people convicted of a felony will have a difficult time finding a job or a place to live. Tens of thousands of people have already found themselves branded as “felon” simply because of minor drug offenses, which by definition are nonviolent and non-serious. Treating such minor offenses as felonies does not serve the interests of justice and does not serve the interest of the people of this state. Reducing felony drug possession to a misdemeanor will remove barriers to reentry that people with prior felony convictions now face, allowing thousands of Californians to fully contribute to family and community life through, among other things, employment and taxes.


Senator Leno’s bill is publicly supported. According to a 2011 Lake Research survey, 72% of voters from all regions, ethnic groups and political affiliations support reducing the penalties for personal drug possession. This bill would not only align California law with the will of the people, it is a common-sense measure and a recognition that it is time to turn away from policies that are unjust, unreasonably expensive, and ineffective. With this simple of a solution to our over-crowded prisons and jails, California has every reason to embrace SB 1506.

HHS issues final rule on insurance exchanges

March 12, 2012 | Mary Mosquera, Contributing Editor


WASHINGTON – The Department of Health and Human Services has released its final rule on the establishment of health insurance exchanges - online marketplaces. The rule also includes provisions for qualified health plans and exchange functions in the individual market.


The final rule, which combines what originally had been separate proposed rules published in July and August 2011, encompasses the key functions of exchanges related to eligibility, enrollment and plan participation and management. The department received more than 24,781 comments on the proposed rules.


HHS seeks further comments from the public on several sections, which are issued as interim final rules, related to options for conducting eligibility determinations, the ability of a state to permit agents and brokers to assist qualified individuals, and Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program.


The 644-page rule appeared March 12 in a preview section of the Federal Register. HHS will officially publish the rule on March 27.


The policies incorporated in the rule give states more flexibility to design and create their exchanges - websites - where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for and compare health coverage. Exchanges are scheduled to go live in 2014 under the health reform law. “Exchanges will offer Americans, competition, choice and clout,” the final rule said.


The rule offers guidance about the options on how to structure exchanges in setting standards for establishing exchanges, setting up a small business health options program (SHOP), performing the basic functions of an exchange, and certifying health plans for participation in the exchange.


The rule also provides guidance for establishing a streamlined, web-based system for consumers to apply for and enroll in qualified health plans and insurance affordability programs.


Boosting competition


Insurers will have to compete for their customers’ business, said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “More competition will drive down costs and exchanges will give individuals and small businesses the same purchasing power big businesses have today,” she said in a statement.


The final rule makes sure that exchanges will coordinate with Medicaid, CHIP, and the Basic Health Program so that an applicant experiences a seamless eligibility and enrollment process regardless of where he or she submits an application.


In response to comments, the final rule provides two ways for exchanges to interact with Medicaid agencies when making eligibility determinations. Exchanges can conduct eligibility determinations for Medicaid and for advance payment of premium tax credits, or the exchange will make a preliminary eligibility assessment and then turn it over to the state Medicaid agency for final determination.


Also, a state-based exchange may determine eligibility for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions, or it could be approved ifHHS makes determinations for these functions.


HHS previously provided a total of $50 million to all states except Alaska, which refused it, to begin to plan the exchanges. Recently, 33 States and the District of Columbia have received more than $667 million in establishment grants to begin building exchanges.


The federal government will put in place an exchange for states that choose not to establish one or will not have one operational by 2014.


The health reform law also provides for a premium tax credit for eligible individuals who enroll in a qualified health plan through an exchange to reduce the cost-sharing obligation of eligible individuals.


HHS said it has worked with states, small businesses, consumers, and health insurance plans and sought public comments to come up with the rule’s provisions.




http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/hhs-issues-final-rule-insurance-exchanges 

Intel Inspires Young Women to Change the World

Last week the world celebrated International Women’s Day and this past weekend, the Women in the World Summit took place in New York City. The summit offers the opportunity for women from around the world to get together and discuss the importance of educating girls throughout every corner of the earth, and what it takes to break down the barriers preventing some girls from receiving an education.

We sat down with Shelly Esque, Vice President and Global Director of Corporate Affairs at Intel, who also participated in the “Girls Can Change the World Panel,” at the Women in the World Summit. Between Intel’s Classmate PC project, the Intel Science Talent Search program, we have known for sometime that the company is heavily invested in education. But Shelly spoke to us more specifically about Intel’s continued efforts to bridge the gender and technology divide. During our conversation together, Esque brought up an interesting point, and that is that technology is gender neutral, yet it really has the potential to unleash a woman’s confidence.

In the U.S. we take internet access for granted, but in places like the Middle East, women are just a minority of online users. And this is a shame, because access to information leads to more empowered women. For example, Esque spoke of one Turkish woman who was at first only allowed to dust the computer in her home. Then Intel created a women’s education program in her local community center. After enrolling in the program, the woman not only learned some valuable computer skills, but she also gained the confidence she needed to apply those new skills to her business. Today her business has become so successful that she is going global. And because she is making money, her male family members no longer seem to be bothered with her using a PC.

Intel believes that technology brings young girls more opportunities for education. Of course, once girls have the opportunity to get an education, they also gain the ability to make a difference in the world. To that effect, Intel has been working with non-government organizations like Room to Read, which is an organization that creates libraries in places that don’t have any. Organizations like this one has helped bring more educational opportunities to young women in developing nations. Furthermore, since 1995, Intel has set-up over 100 Intel computer clubhouses around the world where girls can learn from mentors, as well as from each other.

Intel also has a special Hackathon event coming up soon at their head-quarters Oregon. This 2 day event brings together Intel’s software engineers with groups of young women. The Hackathon will start out with the software engineers coming up with app ideas to solve the girls problems. There will also be opportunities for young women to learn how to create their own apps. All in all, Intel’s goal is to move people to action to help empowering women and girls through education and technology.

http://www.chipchick.com/2012/03/intel-inspire-change-world.html

Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System

AFTER years as a civil rights lawyer, I rarely find myself speechless. But some questions a woman I know posed during a phone conversation one recent evening gave me pause: “What would happen if we organized thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people charged with crimes to refuse to play the game, to refuse to plea out? What if they all insisted on their Sixth Amendment right to trial? Couldn’t we bring the whole system to a halt just like that?”  The woman was Susan Burton, who knows a lot about being processed through the criminal justice system.       

Her odyssey began when a Los Angeles police cruiser ran over and killed her 5-year-old son. Consumed with grief and without access to therapy or antidepressant medications, Susan became addicted to crack cocaine. She lived in an impoverished black community under siege in the “war on drugs,” and it was but a matter of time before she was arrested and offered the first of many plea deals that left her behind bars for a series of drug-related offenses. Every time she was released, she found herself trapped in an under-caste, subject to legal discrimination in employment and housing.

Fifteen years after her first arrest, Susan was finally admitted to a private drug treatment facility and given a job. After she was clean she dedicated her life to making sure no other woman would suffer what she had been through. Susan now runs five safe homes for formerly incarcerated women in Los Angeles. Her organization, A New Way of Life, supplies a lifeline for women released from prison. But it does much more: it is also helping to start a movement. With groups like All of Us or None, it is organizing formerly incarcerated people and encouraging them to demand restoration of their basic civil and human rights.

I was stunned by Susan’s question about plea bargains because she — of all people — knows the risks involved in forcing prosecutors to make cases against people who have been charged with crimes. Could she be serious about organizing people, on a large scale, to refuse to plea-bargain when charged with a crime?

“Yes, I’m serious,” she flatly replied.I launched, predictably, into a lecture about what prosecutors would do to people if they actually tried to stand up for their rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees the accused basic safeguards, including the right to be informed of charges against them, to an impartial, fair and speedy jury trial, to cross-examine witnesses and to the assistance of counsel.

But in this era of mass incarceration — when our nation’s prison population has quintupled in a few decades partly as a result of the war on drugs and the “get tough” movement — these rights are, for the overwhelming majority of people hauled into courtrooms across America, theoretical. More than 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried before a jury. Most people charged with crimes forfeit their constitutional rights and plead guilty.

“The truth is that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used,” said Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the libertarian Cato Institute. In other words: the system is rigged.

In the race to incarcerate, politicians champion stiff sentences for nearly all crimes, including harsh mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws; the result is a dramatic power shift, from judges to prosecutors.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that threatening someone with life imprisonment for a minor crime in an effort to induce him to forfeit a jury trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to trial. Thirteen years later, in Harmelin v. Michigan, the court ruled that life imprisonment for a first-time drug offense did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

No wonder, then, that most people waive their rights. Take the case of Erma Faye Stewart, a single African-American mother of two who was arrested at age 30 in a drug sweep in Hearne, Tex., in 2000. In jail, with no one to care for her two young children, she began to panic. Though she maintained her innocence, her court-appointed lawyer told her to plead guilty, since the prosecutor offered probation. Ms. Stewart spent a month in jail, and then relented to a plea. She was sentenced to 10 years’ probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. Then her real punishment began: upon her release, Ms. Stewart was saddled with a felony record; she was destitute, barred from food stamps and evicted from public housing. Once they were homeless, Ms. Stewart’s children were taken away and placed in foster care. In the end, she lost everything even though she took the deal.

On the phone, Susan said she knew exactly what was involved in asking people who have been charged with crimes to reject plea bargains, and press for trial. “Believe me, I know. I’m asking what we can do. Can we crash the system just by exercising our rights?”

The answer is yes. The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation. Not everyone would have to join for the revolt to have an impact; as the legal scholar Angela J. Davis noted, “if the number of people exercising their trial rights suddenly doubled or tripled in some jurisdictions, it would create chaos.”

Such chaos would force mass incarceration to the top of the agenda for politicians and policy makers, leaving them only two viable options: sharply scale back the number of criminal cases filed (for drug possession, for example) or amend the Constitution (or eviscerate it by judicial “emergency” fiat). Either action would create a crisis and the system would crash — it could no longer function as it had before. Mass protest would force a public conversation that, to date, we have been content to avoid.

In telling Susan that she was right, I found myself uneasy. “As a mother myself, I don’t think there’s anything I wouldn’t plead guilty to if a prosecutor told me that accepting a plea was the only way to get home to my children,” I said. “I truly can’t imagine risking life imprisonment, so how can I urge others to take that risk — even if it would send shock waves through a fundamentally immoral and unjust system?”

Susan, silent for a while, replied: “I’m not saying we should do it. I’m saying we ought to know that it’s an option. People should understand that simply exercising their rights would shake the foundations of our justice system which works only so long as we accept its terms. As you know, another brutal system of racial and social control once prevailed in this country, and it never would have ended if some people weren’t willing to risk their lives. It would be nice if reasoned argument would do, but as we’ve seen that’s just not the case. So maybe, just maybe, if we truly want to end this system, some of us will have to risk our lives.”

Michelle Alexander is the author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html?scp=1&sq=sunday%20march%2011,%202012%20sunday%20review%20page%205&st=cse

California Prisons Face Maximum Security Shortage

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/27/31402/california-prisons-face-shortage-masimum-security-/
Feb. 27, 2012 | By Julie Small | KPCC

Last year, California began complying with a federal court order to reduce its prison population by shifting thousands of low-level felons to county custody. It’s called “realignment” and although it helped bring down the number of inmates in prison, it won’t solve another problem: Where to put the thousands of serious and violent inmates.

The number of inmates in state prisons has already dropped by 16,000 since realignment took effect in October. Corrections officials project that the diversion of low-level felons to counties will reduce the state prison population by 40,000 inmates within a few years. But California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can’t shift serious felons to the counties.

In a report out last week the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected that as realignment progresses, state prisons will have a surplus of 15,000 low security beds and a shortage of 13,000 high-security beds.

The non-partisan report suggest several ways to deal with the mismatch.

Analyst Drew Soderborg says, "One thing that we’re recommending is that they try to maximize their use of their existing space to house high security inmates."

Soderborg thinks CDCR should convert most of the reception centers used to temporarily house new inmates into the higher security housing the prison system needs.

Corrections is also in the process of converting Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla into a men’s prison. The LAO recommends that CDCR use the prison to house as many serious offenders as possible.

Soderborg also says, "We’re recommending that they identify if there’s any other facilities out there that they can use to house high security inmates."

Converting facilities from minimum to maximum security will require an investment in construction, equipment and additional staff.

Soderborg says the state could save money by shutting down some of its more expensive prisons: One example the LAO's report cites is the California Institution for Men in Chino. Its security level matches that of the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, but Deuel spends $10,000 less per inmate per year to house felons than Chino does.

Soderborg says CDCR could also consider shutting down remote prisons that are difficult and expensive to staff and transferring inmates to maximum-security prisons in other states. He says California could also keep some of its high security facilities "slightly overcrowded."