So what have we long known — based on studied facts and data — about mandatory minimums? That they are, 1. Racially applied, 2. Waste tax money, 3. Drive over-incarceration. These are basic well established facts.
The “it” thing right now when it comes to criminal justice reform is to do interviews and fly around the country saying you’re against mandatory minimums while repeating, without details, that you favor much needed reforms. For good reason. If one could name a singular reason for why the U.S. leads the world in the rate of incarceration, it would be mandatory minimums.
In a Buzzfeed interview published yesterday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy went on and on about how he opposes mandatory minimums. Keep in mind, Leahy is also the sponsor of the Justice Safety Valve Act which would allow federal judges to sentences below the mandatory minimum penalty.
“I’m glad to see people are paying attention, but we need to make sure it’s real. You talk about mandatory minimums. You know, get rid of all of them,” Leahy said during the interview.
“They haven’t worked,” Leahy went on to BuzzFeed. “People ought to stand up and say, ‘Mandatory minimums don’t work, they don’t deter crime, they create problems for law enforcement, they’re extraordinarily expensive, and you get nothing in return.’”
He’s — of course — correct. The only problem is: Leahy voted for a mandatory minimum on April 22, 2015. And it was a NEW mandatory minimum — in S. 178, a sex trafficking bill. And he was far from alone. The bill passed 99-0. At some point, congressional Democrats need to figure out how to get as good as tea Partiers Rand Paul and Mike Lee on mandatory minimums. But then, when it came to S.178, even Paul and Lee didn’t notice the expanded mandatory sentences.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is a big time political star so he doesn’t do interviews or answer questions. But he does do speeches and twitter and instagram. On July 17, he tweeted, “mandatory minimum sentences for first-time, nonviolent offenders are often life changing events.” That’s true. So why did Booker vote for an expanded mandatory minimum penalty in S. 178 in April? Who knows. No one can question Booker to find out. I’ll give Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and the pro mandatory minimum gang this: At least they don’t say one thing and vote another.
Remember: Almost all of the Dems are getting loads of Black vote support. And who do mandatory minimums impact disproportionately? Take a wild guess. That one of the House sponsors of S. 178 was DNC Chair Debbis Wassserman Schultz says it all. Dems want Black votes but when it comes to Black issues, well, we need to talk. When Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Tom Massie (R-KY) and Raul Labrador fought to take the new mandatory minimums out of S. 178 in committee, Wasserman Schultz fought against them and the amendment to take the mandatories out failed.
Only Reps. Conyers, Scott and Massie voted against the bill when it hit the House floor. Why? Because of the mandatory minimums. Incredibly, Conyers, Scott and Massie were the only members of Congress, out of 534 people, who voted NO on the bill because of the mandatory penalties. At least we know there at least three members of Congress who truly take justice reform seriously to vote accordingly.
We already know from votes and legislation that several prominent Democrats in the Senate support the number one driver of incarceration. We already know the incoming Senate Minority leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), supports them. We also know that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is a big fan. We know that other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Al Franken (D-MN) are not having any hesitation voting for mandatory minimums. And we know that the House Crime Committee ranking member, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) voted for S. 178.
When it comes to serious criminal justice reform the only important thing to take note of is votes and legislation offered. That’s it. All else is PR.