you don't have that direct evidence and you need this indirect evidence. >> know your honor first of all i strongly deny the general assembly engaged in discrimination but even in that discrimination case -- you have to prove the injury element is stronger when you have her results to when you are trying to prove her results test or maybe you don't think it does. i would have thought that was part and parcel to what you are saying in other words you are talking about the injury and the injury you have to show has to be stronger to coast you can't point it at any evidence of intentional. >> your honor i have to apologize in answering this question because there is not a lot of guidance by the supreme court on these cases. so what we can only do is we can look at the cases and look what sort of slows -- clues we can discern from the cases. we know the constitutional vote you still have to prove discriminatory results to get that the case but you also have to pre-purposes from a nation. >> i was just trying to line up because of it was exactly the same you would never have, there wouldn't be any difference to them. >> the difference your honor is for the 14th amendment of the potential discrimination claim you would have to prove the results. >> why would you ever go to an intentional discrimination claim uis go to the results claim. >> that if you want to take the step that has only happened once in the history of the country to put north carolina back under the preclearance requirements that the plaintiffs were seeking in this case. they don't get that simply by proving their section to results claim. they have got to prove intentional discrimination claim to put north carolina back under the supervision of the district court where they would effectively be in the preclearance situation again. that's the reason why the claims are brought. c i see why you think they brought it but what i'm trying to do is understand why congress would enact it. i don't think they would have enacted a statute in which there were exactly the same elements and you have to prove extra. just doesn't make any sense. in other words i was trying to find a the difference. >> again your honor i apologize if i'm not clarifying this as well as perhaps i might but i would say in an intentional discrimination case you have to prove purposeful discrimination. c all i'm saying is you have to show more impact if you are doing a section to comment the other section to claim. i would have thought that would be the argument. >> your honor that sounds plausible to me. >> i need better than plausible. sprey then i will defer to the court's interpretation on that issue. >> i want to understand what's going on here because then they understand what you are saying here potential to nation is there an additional part two at an potential discriminatory. you have to show interests of the question she is posing as what's the difference if you don't have the two different claims? >> judge i'm sorry the only thing i can say is it's purposeful discrimination that puts you in a line where the state is now under the equivalent of preclearance obligation through the district court. that is a benefit to the plaintiffs approving discrimination i would say there are precious few cases where purposeful discrimination has been found by a district court in these types of cases much less where the district court has found it was not purposeful discrimination relying upon extensive factual findings in the case was reversed by the appellate court. intentional discrimination is a quintessential issue of fact and that relies upon credibility of the witnesses. >> i agree with you on all of that. >> accept. i apologize if i'm not answering your question. >> on this record you have evidence that there is a surge in african-american -- 10 years prior and the law is changed and they claim you were firstly affected to protect your own political interests. it could be the republican party got control of the house and the senate and the governorship and the opportunity came to change those. liberal voter registration provisions which happened the same day shelby was decided it looks pretty bad to me in terms of purposeful discrimination. >> your honor i hope i can persuade you that it was not a nefarious thing. certainly judge schweiker found that it wasn't and there was a couple of premises in your question or your question that i have to challenge. there's a correlation between same-day registration and 17 days where boating and out of precinct voting in preregistration and the increase in the black attrition patient. in registration. from the 2008 to 2012 election. now this, bever been a trial where more experts that came from m.i.t. and harvard and every university in the country and all these have been what's called across data analysis where they give opinions on whether election practices are the cause of an increase in turnout of registration. none of them and they have all done them at the plenary injunction stage none of them had done across state analysis to try to opine whether these practices have caused an increase in turnout of registration. and they were all put on notice that there's evidence that there were states like north carolina such as virginia where the black turnout of registration rates went up at equivalent rates and virginia did not have same-day registration and 17 days of early voting so was our contention that the luminary injunction stage that they'd failed to prove any sort of causal link between these repealed practices and the increase in participation by african-americans so then we went to trial and we have the benefit of the 2014 election and the plaintiffs say well you can't just rely on one election. it's the only election we had so relied upon it and after we had the 2014 election,. >> is there something you can rely upon for intentional discrimination? i understand it's at the point where we talk about results on intent to discrimination but we are kind of going back and forth and i think the question going back to the initial question really the legal issue with the application is standard here in the question being whether the district court applies the extra voting standard or did he apply directly on a rational basis and what are your comments on that? >> your honor he went down all the factors intimate factual findings that he relied upon but there was no discrimination. >> your honor i'm not sure what you mean by motive standard. i think. >> on the intentional discrimination claim he followed arlington heights. >> he looked at did they follow their normal procedures which they did despite all the arguments that have been made that they did not island the rules and they handled this bill in a similar way to other bills. they adopted amendments that soften the alleged impact on the protected group. they adopted a very significant amendment when proposed by democratic senator stein where the original bill dropped the number of days from 17 to 10. they dropped the number of days from 17 to 10 because as judge schroeder found under the prior law there have been gamesmanship on the early voting sites. they were placed in areas that favor democratic voters and the judgment of factual finding on that. the reason why the legislature cut the days was one of the reasons they wanted to have equal treatment and all counties same day same hours. >> isn't that kosher to a rational basis? isn't an actual motive on engaging. >> your honor honestly think the rational basis issue is a completely different question. >> i need to articulate. i'm not trying to make the case one way or the other but that i think is critical and critical determination is whether the trial judge do in applying the law? if he didn't apply to the law correctly then we have a problem , problem outside of whether the facts are there so my question to you is the standard of review that the trial judge applied here, it seems to me it's more than a rational basis review and if it was tell me was -- would that have been or was it correct? >> your honor i think it's a different question. >> let me ask that question. i think i'm not asking my question. my question is would it have been a problem assuming the trial court to apply under rational basis review. >> would have been proper for him to look at issues like that when he got to the arlington heights of tenuousness of the policy. that's about this on the list. >> it would have been proper to apply rational basis review would look happy statute with regard to tenuousness. >> would have been a rational basis when you're analyzing a statute that is not in the suspect class. under arlington heights the issue is where there are rational reasons for the legislature's decision and in fact your honor they did articulate rational reasons for their decision in the legislative history. for example for early voting i bartik talked about that they decided they were unhappy with the gamesmanship that was being done by less than majority votes by the county board of elections in the state board of elections as far as the location of early voting sites so they decided they wanted to have all sites in a single county treated the same way and they wanted the fees reduced to reduce potential for gamesmanship. then senator stein offered an amendment suggesting despite the reduction of days for early voting that each county required to keep the same number of hours that they had used in the most analogous recent election so for example in 2014 she had to use the same hours the county used in 2010. in 2010 they had to use the same number of hours they used in 2016. this will work why are the county boards open up more sites , extend the evening hours extend weekend hours. >> but they're there some sort of waiver. >> unlike the prior system where whoever was in the majority on the county boards could dictate what the plaintiffs would be. under h.b. 589 day requires a majority vote or a unanimous vote sewn other words north carolina has got to republicans and one democrat on the county board of elections and they have three republican appointees and three democrats. county boards cannot reduce the number of hours unless all three of the county board members agree and all i've of the state board members agree. >> there are 100 counties? >> yes maam. see neck and they are all aligned that way? >> which is that? >> the governor decides who is a majority are on there. >> two republicans and one democrat. >> for the benefit of the public where there's a democratic governor that governor decided he was the majority. >> why did this statute -- that you'd does -- exclude the public system? >> your honor i can't answer that question. on the why they did that. >> we know those are typically used more by minorities but the question i'm asking if you don't know you just don't know but judge mccrory did give an answer and i thought maybe you give me an answer as to why he excluded the legislature. >> first of all your honor i don't know that was ever suggested by anybody. it may have been but i don't know. >> suggested that it was excluded? i'm sure they did the plaintiffs counsel did on rebuttal. >> i thought they would exclude it. >> yes your honor but i don't know if there was a vote to amend the statute to allow public assistance i.d.s. >> it seems like the question is not why did someone ask you to put it back in. the question is why did he take it out he goes you were the one to have potentially discriminate. that's my question why did they take it out? >> because it was reasonable for them to give most the responsibility for the creation to the division of motor vehicles which have offices all over the stage where people could get a night d. we put all this bashing under the division of motor vehicles throughout this case. >> with me ask another question. did the legislature's specific way for quest demographic data? >> yes your honor. let me ask you a question your honor. >> no, you don't ask me. you and i have been together a lot and i understand where we are. i'm simply asking a question and the answers either one way or the other. my question is simply you know that racial data information is the question. the legislature did so knowing how it would affect minority voters. i simply asked you to respond. >> your honor i would say it is not prudent not to answer that data knowing that these laws could be subject at the time when the data was passed the state was still under section 5 but even after section 51 away it was still under section 2 so it only would be prudent for the legislature to ask for that information. in fact judge schroeder asked the justice department when of our hearings would have been worse or better for the state of north carolina not to enter that data and the justice department basically said we can't answer that question. we don't know the answer to that question so if you are concerned about complying with the laws and we have laws that prohibit discrimination against minorities is prudent to find out some degree of what the racial demographics are. >> that demographic information once you have it you have information that information warms you of certain kinds of behavior and that is early voting is more likely to be used by americans in the first week. voter i.d.s are more likely not to be possessed and voting may more likely be used. is that the type of information my question is that the legislature had? >> may i answer the questionnaire on there? your honor first of all every case where there isn't intentional discrimination or section. >> or section i've every court has said evidence over disparity does not prove anything so that's the first . secondly there is no evidence or honor --. >> is one of those courts united states supreme court? >> absolutely. you don't prove a violation because there isn't alleged result. >> mr. farr i'm trying to get my understanding clear. i'm asking a specific question as to the type of evidence that was before the legislature and weathered informed decision or not i don't know. he it could go either way but i want to know did have this information on it picked off by example, information that the use of these particular procedures were unfortunately higher in the minority entity than a non-entity? >> your honor they had knowledge that the state border elections report indicated that they were unable to match african-americans at the same. as whites. it was no indication that they didn't possess photo i.d. it's just they could not match them. the state board of elections said their report was inflated because there were all sorts of problems associated and the evidence shows that it was inflated and the state took that information and they adopted a two-year rollout rollout period before they decided to enforce photo i.d. and they mandated what's been unprecedented as found by an educational campaign to educate people on photo i.d. to get the federal i.d.s. they got information and they took appropriate steps to try to do something about it. >> thank you. >> thank your honor and made please the corporate i'm alexander peters at the north carolina attorney general's office and the only thing i am going to talk about is the title and a ticket might be simpler conceptually but i want to make sure the court is aware of its practical considerations. a general election is 20 weeks from today so i want to make sure the court is aware of what's going to happen in those 20 weeks and i think it might be simplest if i take it by each of the mechanisms we are talking about preregistration str provision voting photo i.d. and early voting. the counsel for the plaintiffs said was partially right but partially incorrect peer plaintiffs don't administer elections so would be understandable that perhaps they don't have quite the information when it comes to preregistration same-day registration of precinct provisional balloting and photo i.d. all of those things are handled in the system which is the state election information management system suite of applications. there is testimony about that in the record below. it has to be in place if in the form it's going the form it's going to be used prior to the beginning of absentee voting at the beginning of september or so seems pretty much has to be locked in for what it's going to be looked like during the election mid-to late out is before it can be locked in a number of tests and essentially mock elections and that's where things have to be run. to make sure everything is working together properly and is going to do what it is supposed to do on election day. those tests have already started so we are really at the point at this point that it's very difficult if not impossible to start recoding new information and four to work for the general election. >> there's no way that we can issue an opinion. >> in fact that's not what i'm saying your honor. that's not what i'm saying at all. with one exception and that's preregistration. it is too late at this point especially of it has to be courted with dmv. it's too late to have seems set up to deal with preregistration and happened in place prior to the beginning of september which is when it would need to be in place. the purposes of this election that doesn't have the effect it might seem because anyone who will be a team on the number eight can register so the fact that there is not preregistration built into the system at this point would not prevent anyone who will be 18 at the time of the election to register if they haven't already because they may have registered to vote in the primaries. >> i'm thinking preregistration is something you have to do in addition to what you are to have. it seems you are taking away from things that are there are so it may be easier to subtract them to add. >> same-day registration out of precinct original voting because of the preliminary injunction in the trial court in because of this court's order those were to stay in place pending the decision of this court. same-day registration out of precinct provisional voting already in it. seems to set up to handle them and can handle them and will handle them in the same with photo i.d.. it's set up to handle that. the ideal would the if we were not going to have any of those things, would be to pull them out of the system but you can't do that without risking messing up other things you don't intend to mess up so with the state board would have to do if the court were to issue decisions that either said no same-day registration in november no out of precinct original voting in december and november or, and/or the state board was simply have to make sure county boards know not to use any of those. that leaves do with the second issue is with regard to this and that's training and education. statewide mandatory training for county boards of elections. county board members and county elections officials are expected to attend this training and as a training that they use to train. that training is said and has been set or months for august 8 and 9th which is seven weeks from yesterday, seven weeks from today. that's one county elections officials are going to be trained on what the rules are for the election and given the materials to take back to their counties and use for training. if any changes are made after that date, then it becomes an issue not just of educating people on what the rules are bred reeducating people. it's not what you party been told, it's now going to be this. it also means redoing, there's testani and evidence in the trial court about what's called the guide. it's the big resource manual essentially that every poll worker has at their station that has all the information about how to do everything. that would have to be redone in order for accurate information to be available to county poll workers. >> what is this information now? >> currently,. >> at the moment some of these provisions are enjoyed. >> currently with this asian guy does is tell them how to implement data, how to do same day registration and how to do out of precinct voting because those things are all in place for this election as it stands now. >> so we should seem to would be see to strike those. i used to represent election boards in my youth. >> it might be easier for same-day registration and out of recent traditional voting for photo i.d. it becomes much harder because it's interwoven into so many aspects of the guide in terms of the process coming in. i would also point out that videos and the like have been prepared that were used for the primary that would be used for training in this go-round. all of those deal with photo i.d. on how to implement photo i.d.. the bottom line is if they're going to be changes and if we want to make sure the elections are to minister to uniform lay and the county elections officials have the best information available to them really the state board of elections would need to know what changes need to be made well and advance weeks or months in advance of the training so that they could make sure that all the training materials are accurate. the council also mentioned the voter guide that goes out to every household in north carolina, 4.5 million go out. under the contract with the vendor who is printing the guide for the state board of elections have proved have to be at the vendor at the printer on august 5 so again we are talking in early august date by which things are going to be going into print and county board officials will be educated in terms of what the rules are for the elections. if we get after that point it comes an issue of reeducation rather than simply saying these are the rules. with regard to early voting i think it's important to remember that it's the counties that implement those and it is true county boards of elections have the ability to tell other public buildings in the county we intend to use that doping on these days for early voting. .. >> >> unless you know, something. i have no plans. [laughter] >> i want to reply to the points with the evil mentation points but i think those that our little more central that there is no case where it is discriminatory there is no case like this. there is no precedent for their rollback house bill 589 created impairing voting rights also represented the first major construction since 1965 in north carolina picked up where history left off right after shelby county came down. the legal errors were numerous so to your point, it does matter the distinction if the court is an important legal distinction. >> how do you know, that? i did not get that so how do you know, ? >> the district court said it would not have been unreasonable for north carolina to see how shelby county came down. but an important point is that was in just sitting on the voter i.d. bill with the burden of going through pre- clarence they go through all of these other changes and the contrary but that previous version of house bill that came out of the house did include public assistance identification. post shelby they take that out for a reason they could have surmised absolutely. these are not actual reasons they are rational basis if deloitte for pre-tax or motive you commit legal heir and reach the wrong conclusion. so with that troubling interplay between race and politics. somehow would only applies to a case and that is not true. they use the same language of intentional discrimination to fence out a portion of the electorate so it is not constitutional are limited and there also mentioned incredibly there is no showing of injury there is no evidence n injury the district court found hundreds of voters that are disenfranchised because of house bill 589. and it is there. i just want to make clear that the record does show that on all different levels the legislature asks for data on racial impact on the post shelby consideration. that is on page 26. >>. >> it is a relevant point but also the knowledge with which the of the legislature was acting. >> are you making arguments of legislature couldn't have the president? >> no. they were relieved of that duty to comply with section five but they knew that disparate impact of the decision to include there are tens of provisions that are filed every year my dad is voted is the disparate impact of racial minority voters so if there is separate bills dealing with all of these provisions but just not combined in one piece of legislation. >> i am not sure that there was proposing to eliminate registration but and there were bills wanted to cut early voting. and that is all in the history of the tracking. >> jumping around up a little bit but this court in 2014 emphasized the district court committed legal thereby dismissing is minimal the number of voters that are disenfranchised. and this court the basic truth says even one let alone thousands is too many. the fact that he demonstrated there were thousands of voters that were disenfranchised. with the bureaucratic efficiency and it goes to the remedy that the state board of elections made into enfranchised voters may have a contract if the federal court rules the day are discriminatory and unconstitutional there is ample time to educate the voters to make sure north carolinian can vote. >> we will take the case under advisement and ask of clerk to report. n oral argumente challenging a north carolina election law. >> conservatives discuss their view on the criminal justice system in capitol hill today. we will hear from americans from tax reform and representatives of the texas public policy foundation. the group, right on crime hosted this 90 minute discussion. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon thanks for joining yes after the long holiday weekend dash a policy analyst from the public policy foundation. we are a 501(c) three nonprofit with the missiontu to promote liberty and personal responsibility and free enterprise by educating and affecting policy makerste with academically sound research the one-stop source better work revolves around stop fighting crime supporting victims than protecting taxpayers. we have dozens of conservative leaders and former governors and legislators members of law-enforcement and commentators and other policymakers who resigned on right on crime is a national pr project helping to reform legislators and governors to put public safety first. july is the texas conservative think tank for criminal justice reform as he worked in the space that texas model for criminal justice reform continues to be replicated throughout the nation in conservative states. the texas model is successful because the focus is about social engineering or government flexing its muscles instead it is focused on tweeting the system to fight crime and protect public safety and we end up saving taxpayer dollars. i hope you will take away the criminal-justice reform that is for and by conservatives. the how crime affects all americans. deal we have a slight change to our program today. mark will speak first he is our policy director. he is dead with tepee ps since it began he was featured by just about everyone his leadership andn research into a national project he has testified before dozens of state legislatures you may recognize him and he will share more how new york these reforms work. mark? >> we changed it up i know most of you were here to see grover we didn't want you to leave but he was asked by president reagan to start americans for tax reform so with his state of the state speech he said our rehabilitation policy attracted nationwide attention that we could return to prison if they time their history so of course, after that time frame we saw 546 told the incarceration increase. so we went to measuring our success by how many people were in prison by how big the corrections system was that something that believes in smaller government should be proud of. so we have 5% of the world's population one out of three adults have a criminal record - - 34 are under correctional control that actually could not comment and with two-thirds of the bridges spelldown every year it would be a national scandal so we know sometimes that they need they get worse when they arepe incarcerated. and one of the problems that we see that one out of fivee inmates are released without supervision with no releastability once they arere back in society so i found it useful to compare to other systems like theriminal medical system but if you look for the practice of medicine you see the treatment baseon the diagnosis with the similar profile who have the same illness or condition that is often based that it is created by politicians and similarly in the medicalfe system that type of treatment is based on the monitoring of progress. in to see those precautions taken with collateral consequences as they get jobs said places to live. and then you to look up the test scores if they are unsuccessful 0m principals are increasingly given more power than to anybody for co-head so with bad recidivism rates you also testing the education system that is regularly assessed anntaylor accordingly where for example, in the correctional system it is a cookie cutter approach and what is done is not really adjusted as time goes by. with the school system you have those that dropout ofem private school or home school so the criminal-justice system grows to the extent that it fails the more prisons areed needed in the more government jobs and of course, in the education system although you can vote with your feet with evaluations the prison system is out of sight and out of mind and the public has very little input so those are the challenges we see across the country but fortunately there is a lot of good news that we see across many states so we have gone from one atom of 100 adults in prison dozens of states have enacted sentencing reform and other provisions and 30 states are part of the reinvestment actus where data is gathered to develop a consensus with public safety and reduce to pro. recidivism and of course, over lasted two years is down 40%. one of the most significant factors that it has declined more from 2008 through 2014 so during the five-year period where imprisonment declined and in the 17 states were increased there was a 11% increase so bad is emblematic thate was 11% incarceration is that youdi sweep more and more low-risk offenders you get less public safety benefit and counterproductive as a lot of states like ohio there six month or one-year prison terms because you're not getting them off the street for any realtime your taking their job away and these are typically low level drug offenses going to prison for a short sentence so i will highlight the steps that the states have taken by one of the big changes was in the '60s there was a belief in the self-esteem approach andwa that has changed to more accountability based like motivational interviewing thera. and therapy is also a technological advances in treatment for opiate addiction and an electronic monitoring and actuarial risk and needs assessments so we have learned a lotne over the last few decades i think that has been critical. one of the things we can do now to make sure we have a right level of supervisione so some people can be on probation some have more intensive supervision so you can better allocate yourte resources.e we see a lot of states with veteran courts tw why some have a 34 percent recidivism rate compared to those who are incarcerated but now states are getting smarter it all but those that would have been incarcerated into basic provision so the key is to have the traditional accountability and that judge to have marshall treatment resources ball to have adopted graduated sanctions nationally half the people coming into prison for failing probation or parole and they are technical violators they've missed appointments were tested positive for left the county without permission and so you cannot even have a glass of wine or alcoholic you were on probation for shoplifting that is totallyls unrelated and we could streamline the conditions but with a commensurate sanctions with a graduated approach so they get a curfew so you don't wait until all of these violations pileups making it comparable to a kid touching a hot stove the new way for him to do it again and again and come down on him like a with a heart a now for those positive and positi incentives and those are more effective rather than the positive behavior other than sanctions so you have a few states like ohio and kansas that have adopted the statewide grid mitt is increasing dash rate for theha provision successfully a portion of the white house bill that states such as georgia texas and ohio were people on supervision and has been a number of empirical studies that said that they do increase the rate. another strategy many states adopted if you send fewer nonviolent low-risk offenders typically these plans are in arizona and ohio and illinois are tied to reducing recidivism as well as the increasing percentage that are employed in under restitution. this led to a 31% and 28%rimes y drop and another approach that one out of five inmates are released without supervision that is troubling for those with notes follow-up and there was the study that found 36 percent higher rates by comparable offenders pursues those on parole and part of that is paid for to reinvest that money into supervision so now just to profile several states and what the results have been so naturally i am inclined to start with texas as many of you know, we were facing a projected increase the over 17,000 newew prison beds we had an approach that had to wonder if $41 million of expanding drug courts and prison treatment programs and substance abuse beds and so forth. we now have close to three adult prisons the incarceration rate since 2005 is down 14% prime rate is down 29% to read period. so texas is of course, what is more important look atat the rate of people committing crimes while on probation has declined that is even more than the prime rate declined in the case lois is lower there is treatment beds that they can refer people so there is still a lot of work to do but it has been verye' impressive south carolina is another state that went early with the investment approach to expand the drug courts supervision in read deuced levels in the assessments to guide the supervision levels and that prison savings went through supervision that save 7 million so again very good results and then north carolina has had a very successful justice reinvestment package which included reduced sentencing for low level drug possession to pass similar reductions in crime georgia is a state that has gone a more recently in their drug courts have reduced raw creating a safety valve for drug minimum also addressing the reentry issue by giving judges discretion to revoke there driver's license of drug offenders and also to say employers can be sued for hiring ex offenders now the incarceration rate is down in the crime rate has fallen. now utah has adopted a successful package to reduce low-level drug possession and to be at the county level with certain graduated sanctions they establish standards for drug treatment programs reinvesting in allowing drug offenders to keep there driver's license. so most recently alaska adopted a package facing over 169 million of prison cost if they didn't do anything they had challenges with people living in remote locations so that is why expanded electronic monitoring they addressed pretrial issues by saying people who cannot afford bail would be put on pre-trial supervision they also reduce low-level possessions to a misdemeanor so let me conclude by also mentioning one area of one area that states have shown the way it of the issue of criminal intent in the last couple years both michigan and ohio have unanimously to their legislatures pass saids bh defaults men's racewhat we deposition -- mens rea provision that if any bill is produced to create a new one then it cannot go forward i think it has been remarkable how the bipartisan unanimous votes and then finally in texas the last session we adopted the rule that if there are two or more objective interpretations and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant so that is another protection to the others have had defendant and really would follow these obscure criminal offenses in texas there are 1500 outside the penal code. so i really appreciate the chance to share these developments and it shows the states across the country are taking the leadh in a way that is sustainablele because it addresses public safety and the fact that our prisons are out of control.. thank you very much. [applause] >> let me just take a minute that everybody can slide down if anybody doesn't mind letting them get to the back corner as we get started. few want to be nice and let people in. also was the panel kicks off off want to make sure people get materials. but there are five chairs over here. come forward. please. it is liis live. what you can tell the people that you worked for that grover norquist pulled a chair for you today. [laughter] thanks. a few brave people. come on down. like i said i will pass around a programs but i will pass this off to craig is a vice president for advocacy one of the organization's that make up for right on crime for the public policy foundation and he does a lot of good work on this initiative and speaker of the house for several years and he brings a perspective so we can talk about this and leave the room forer questions at the end. >> was speaker of the house when i was six ft. four with a full head of hair and this is what i look like now. is good to be with you all. on a couple of runs as i introduce myself we will talk about ourselves and the organizations and why we are here first of all, thank you zhuzhou and mark and derek and the entire organization for the good work they do to bring forth information so people can make informed decisions on a system that affects a lot of lives.te to affect the lives as lives ina significant as our health care or education system it's lif with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". and the victims that holdout expectations the government will play a role to restore that and the efficacy of our effort it affects every and it affectsress when they go home talking to people, even people, even if takes a year or two off from the national debate with the federal government as it did around the 2012 election it comesn, back in his right on top of every newspaper it seemsly every day at the 6:00 and 11:00 news with members of congress going home we allthey o look for solutions that work my background at the state and local level. the local i was invited to work at prison fellowship which is one of the oldest and largest criminal justiceat prisn fe reform advocacy organizations founded by a convicted felon who started it when he left prison he was richard nixon's political advisor special assistant convicted in the watergate related investigation and i had a chance meeting with him after a panel in 2011 with grover he and others suggested i meet with himst and chalk thought my experience in serving in office as a conservativespeakere speaker of the hospital so that somebody who lived with addiction 29 years before injuring recovery i could speak to the debate has we hire people and using the voice of those that not only have an opinion on tcriminal convictions and the other things like what we went through so we're not talking about those people but ourselves. for us it is values and principal debate so it is a privilege and honor to be here and serve with so many as right on crime that i get their privilege with check before he passed away. i am serving as the moderator i will like to interject but i will be moderating questions and my first is just to go through my introductions with the standard question for why the organization is here. not just individual but why they day care about this debate going on federally on criminal-justice reform today. i know we assume what people are here for your the host host, but tell us what rightte on crime is interested in. righ' >> i can't add much to texas specific beyond what mark so eloquently said the reason however thatave a segue into covering federal policy as well is think of trickle up policy reform the success we experienced nattily in texas but other states in the union, it wasn't taking of the federal level so we decided to make a concerted effort to get involved with the research and topicssome of items that you see now before congress presently. so with the work of joe and the coalition partners, you see that across the board not just on our side but on the other side as well, you see this more as an important issue there may be other reasons why the individual groups are at the table but the fact that there at the table underlies the fact something could be accomplished. >> thanks.in dan with the american conservative union tell us about yourself and your background and the involvement. >> and the executive director of the american conservative union. we have been part of criminal justice reform back rather than going through that history i will ask a question then make the assertion. not everybody in this room is a conservative by trust. i assume we have liberals and moderates but i hope we can all agree on the proposition that incarcerating people is a top bad thing. incarcerating people deprives them of their liberty. issued be used only as a last resort that the american conservative union we stand that the central role of the federal government is to protect life and liberty and property so if we deprive people of their liberty a better be for a very, veryry good reason.tter it better be f pat should be sitting in this seat he had food poisoning so i am sitting here instead be coins the phrase which to put people in prison we are afraid of not people that we are mad at. so many of our laws are directed at people we don't like or we are mad at not the people we are afraid of. i used to practice law years ago when i was taking my criminal justice required for graduation i was taught to things what is a crime? that is the first question put to deny suspect most people may not know what a crime is i was taught what the statute says is a crime. that is not true today.. there are lots of thingsa that are crimes and have nothing to do with statutes second i was taught went to a fancy pants law school we were supposed to know everything. to commit a crime you had to have the intention to do the act and that is a longer true either there are things that are crimes that a legislative body never voted on it never had the intent or the knowledge we enteredng an era where we lock up all sorts of people because we are mad at them and have nothing to do with safety and it drives up cost and more important it is depriving people of their liberty and i hope we canpl all agree that is the lastree resort. >> grover with americans for tax payers' reform are one of the visible national figures in the criminal justice today and you have been committed to this so tell us how you got here and what your organization focuses on. >> americans for tax reform actually i was interested in the subjects for a long time before i got into americans for tax reform got involved with to trial as a senior in high school but it was a very important issue for many reasons that day andhe talked about if you are putting them in prison you better know what you are doing you know, what people living in fear that ought not to be but as a conservative activist conservatives and taxpayers spend a lot of time focusing on what government should not do we're very good 2.0 that is a stupid thing. we will get rid of it here first. so we didn't spend a lot of time on those things that the government ought to do like the military is strong enough in putting the bad guys in prison to be tough on crime and i assume all the prosecutors would take care of that in there is an awful lot of work to do but if we're going to be government we need to look at what government ought to do to say how should this be done in the least destructive or expensive way in terms of people's lives and families and neighborhoods as well as dollars. and then you realize the left is incapable of participating in reforming criminal-justice because they weren't interested in the subject and nobody will listen to them they got the right answer in vermont nobody would listen there is a wonderful chart that you have texas was the first day to work on criminal justice reform and it grows out from the red states from republican and conservative states this is from mens rea c civil asset forfeiture were fighting over criminalization that licensing laws that keep felons from getting a job when they get out of prison there is a licensing requirement to rob a bank the can braid hair. very good solid did positions have been adopted in now as it moves forward other states i think we need to spend as much time looking at the pentagon criminal justice system to reform not to abolish as we do the programs we would like to see get smaller or go away. left can participate in talley opened his own i have testified in various statesiousd they say they did this in taxes than people look up. so it's not a weak on crime they were talking about actually they did it five years ago. two election cycles nobody lost an election over the subject, and not only comes from a good place to be serious of fighting crime nissan wonderful numbers going down perhaps because the reforms are going through and at the same time they want to know it is safe somebody will deal they are weak on crime but these ideas would have gone nowhere because she could not have gone to the people of missouri we have a greatt idea in vermont you try it that texas in the heather states have moved first ever allow that to move forward in the whole idea of federalism getting more states to do this, now with the federal government making similar reforms at the national level we're not asking anybody to not vote for anything that is not politically safe we're not losing seats or races it is the opposite is been a wonderful opportunity for conservatives to message. and it has worked state-by-state i think thisen is a model for conservatives to link gauge the other model is pass it in the state and i think any law should be passed unless 10 states have done a first show was it works that is what the criminal-justice reform movement has done not just this issue but others. we will talk about specific issues being debated and various bills everyone's information there will not be any endorsements from theione panel today or picking one over the other but one of the important things i want to clear up because they think it is important for the context is the impression each of you have with your organization's because in washington d.c., often people say on the 6:00 news where is the compromise? where the people in the middle that can split the baby to come up with legislation? but i think you will hear loud and clear from us is it about compromise or working toward shared values of principled people on theeo left and the right? >> the people in the middle did this to us because all of the reasonable people thought this was the way to people thought this wa left right coalition's is one of the handful that has r been successful and conservatives have led it doesn't have credibility among voters they led the same fight am not sure i trust the ready but there is no compromise on principles. may be different life experiences over a sense of what works or what does it but a when you sit down with the people from the aclu they are serious about mens rea it is important to those on the western not the one everyone to go to prison for environmental rules made by bureaucrats for those who think rule of law matters and then they end up inn charge of everything. this is not right and left get together but it was halfway from where they wanted this is where we cann say to we need to keep this many people in prison for this long? had we get the nod of prison so they don't come back possible asset forfeiture where the cops stopped the car reading debate have drugs are many now sell your car will resell the new one they take your debit card in the money out of your bank se account.t. now we get some laws passed they cannot take the car and the many militia were convicted then of course, the proceeds of a bank robbery. good but they should not steal that mitchell had been convicted resawed the numbers there is more money taken away from americans for civil asset forfeiture they and robbers it is the big deal and very sad. all of these reforms are from people of principles can agree on. there is a bunch of criminal-justice things we are not working on but those that we can if he could pass legislation state-by-state in federal the it is not a question to sacrifice principles there is no bill that says the race is cry but there is other good stuff that is not the deal he your it is not a compromise of stupid ideasas it is one principle we can agree with. >> and want to reinforce that i can't imagine a bill passing that showed an increase in crime. this there has been no evidence and interestingly the state's with every reform they have passed has done a much better job than historically they have withmu tracking and every proposal romney/ryan the left in every bill that has any traction at all has improve public safety i think that is lost in the debate is this the compromise of the american conservative values or define them attractive to a broader audience? >> but here first question is related to the legislative process can the left in the right compromise? m1 to reiterate so much of what is going on now scheerer is not legislated in orientation there is one bureaucratically profs trust from columbia has championed the idea for the bureaucracy should capture politics to control people but that runs counter to the entire founding of carnation as the staff knows well we believe sovereignty resides with the person has to the debtor nation's founding powerful constitution begins not with the continental congress or the founding fathers but we the people so there is a conflict where typically it is the last pushing the bureaucracy to move ahead but then the bureaucracy creates the criminal laws that include incarceration as well as the stiff fines and outside of the political process i do not mean process ab partisan but how people govern themselves of a political philosophy and as we have seen the legislative branch diminish in stature stature, one of theon consequences has been a criminal justice state. congress needs to take its rightful place in the process and return to a place where members of congress on the left and right can work together to address issues in a bipartisan way take control of the process back from thet bm bureaucracy and then as they move forward, the understand the liberty should only be a bridge to fit is very bad. >> we traditionally applied things like that by saying amen. >> amen. to be heavily involved with the states that have experienced not only success legislatively what we hope congress will do but to be around to see the results of the work and how that playsee iy ou out do you feel right on crime was a principal player were you were drawn into compromise? >> most certainly the former if you looked at this in terms of a spectrum of ideology we are just meeting in the middle of the bell curve it is a you were we overlap on these issues of a great example coming from texas 2015 we were one of two states that use the criminal justice system for kids skipping school we would have a class c misdemeanor if you're absent or late three days or more. and make a joke that i make me both bonnie and clyde as a youngster but there are states that still use that and through a concertedd effort between us and texas on the left we could overlap on this particular issue with the exact same policy prescription while not compromising the values they still advocate for payday linder reform and pipeline reform and things that we are not bent on the criminal justice interlude with school discipline we were 100 percent on agreement this is one example we find that issue as opposed to changing what that stands for the dc data across the spectrum another greats example is in michigan you see that mackinac center in the chapter of the aclu shoulder to shoulder championing mens rea reform in the shows tough federal process both of them had natural constituencies that were affected by the law or lack of it as you can find these nine common allies overlapping and then moving forward on that. >> in next question and it seems the elephant in the room is discussing the issues for a member of congress, 40 years we have had a template to be successful politically whether running as a republican or democrat has more people are in prison is a politically safe move to do the opposite is risky. politically risky we see overwhelming evidence that these reforms reduce crime. s has that changed the political dynamic in america? is in no vote on reform that addresses fiscal oversight liberty issues the performance of the system, what is a member of congress looking at that have the research and support in front of them? >> you hit the good and the bed on the head you have a policy issue criminal justice and reform it doesn't sound by very well however here we have a litany of success across a variety of programs i honestly think politically speaking as a third-party observer that is diminishing of napoli gone what you have seen with recent campaign cycles to be tough on crime has been invoked rather than the tip of the superior it hasn't found any footing you also see all the polling going on in tandem in texas on this issue specifically since 2013 by year's from the reforms of 2007 we want to look at what are in the hearts and minds of the program? not only does the affected people wanting to see common-sense reform very strongly supported we haved we seen very credible of facts and for example, of an article from the criminology and public policy we saw that conservative identification predict the affinity towards rehabilitation you see that driving a lot of public tends to drive a lot of public preference however that is that iadowed by the rehabilitation and that plays second fiddle and say we need to have a strong deterrent system but that gets at most 7% a people saying there should be the purpose of criminal justiced bef is not that they don't want to but simply isn't what drives it we the people most two / one bled to spend money on effective rehabilitation than go to jail that goes across ideology in this is in texas this isn't the average person from kennebunkport so i think when we looked at what is going on in theat state's give say better since of where the american political policy is. >> grover you mentioned already in your remarks about the performance of government institutions that you looked at going after what they consider to overstep the proper role of government this is an area where there is consensus that there hasn't been a lot of scrutiny sometimes better at setting up political issues and she would simplyes bt summing say classrooms are supposed to make people smarter the criminal-justice system should reduce crime hold people accountable so what is your take on the performance of the system from the taxpayers perspective? >> hasn't done a very good job and has done extremely expensive because people don't focus on and we spend $50,000 a year in californian it to put an adult in prison in these are significant th numbers if you can punish somebody in rehabilitating tenures instead of 15 if you can keep somebody had of going to prison and keep them away from crime that saves a bunch of money than you take a parent out of they oa household that could be earning support for the family then they end up on welfare that doesn't do any good good it is tough on kids but a lot of families that needou to figure out how to beecher crime work on rehabilitating people with the least amount of damage and if we don't do that well because we're not focused passing a law against raping each other in prison and how long was that the punch line for the for ho jokes? so i think if we focus on getting it done with the least amount of destruction to people's lives and pocketbooks we can do a lot better but sometimes people say there was this by putting people in prison and maybe with that drop in crime if we spike the number of people in prison what is the drop of physical violence or physical crime rape or murder or assault but the drop of those crimes is matched with passage ofcealey concealed carry and that was passed state by state you can compare 10 years ago 15 years ago or five years agod that is where uc people will still steal your -- stealti your car but in those states they're more likely to mug you so that is our you see the drop they partly try to get away from the fact you can draft concealed carry passage that people can still carry permits with a drop of physical violence and now 14-point to million have an active permit name not surprised we have seen that kind of crime decrees. k >> i reserved a right to interject there will say one thing. with statistics to pick up on what grover centcom one of the casualties of the passages of locking people up from the early '70s through a few years ago, was the actual arrest and conviction clearance rate of murder with of violent crime rates it was cited in an arkansas paper the current system leaves 47 percent of the murders go without an arrest no timeserver no sentence or probation your reentry but orion from working on a 50 percent arrest rate of chicago running 30% of arrest rate for murder in chicago in theresd '60s before restarted focusing locking up people for lesser crimes, the arrest rate for murder was significantly higher into the 90 percentile. so statistically we have moved our focus away from where america would think they are focused. but my question for you is one of the of most respected conservative voices in america, from your vantage point how did we get here? what to the point that we have this debate today? >> was looking around the audience earlier i will not ask people to raise their hand but how many if you are 50 years of age or older? don't major hand but my guess is maybe one fourth if you are in the restive you are younger if you are under 50 you may not recall the time when the mantra changed to crime does pay there was a time where the focus is on the fact you could commit a crime and get away with it. so congress started to get tough on crime and that was a phrase often used it was supposed to mean we will pursue justice for victims but the pendulum has swung so far we now have a young man from detroit who wanted to be a video producer he boarded the train in mexico they could not figure out why he and $40,000 on him it etf thought he does not deserve that. he must me at to no good so they took his $40,000 to the asset forfeiture law. that young man has to hire a lawyer to prove his innocence forget innocent until proven guilty. no. that money was taken from him. that young man that earned 40,000 now has to hire a lawyer and go through years of trial to get his money back this is obscene fortunately we have people who are fighting hard but across the board we have seen this extreme move where the individual is no longer thought to be sovereign with the state controls the individual so the whole election asks the question does the person control the government and as a conservative we need to restore the rights of the individual to pull back on the extreme criminal laws that poll everybody into a criminal. >> we have a few more minutes together in we will talk about some of the issues not endorsing any specific bills but what the members of congress are confronted with today. i will give my commentary as some of the review the bills in both chambers that by and large if you divide that criminal justice system into three parts sentencing loss of repays back the debt to serve their time and post release most of those congressional bills are debated where there is a strong desire for passage or consideration relate to the first to either sentencing or the conditions of confinement so you heard them talk about mens rea and civil asset forfeiture but specific to those policies with them talking about the importance of congress. >> we just had a little too torrent -- tutorial today on mens rea the reason hillary clinton is putting secure documents on e-mail is okay and not a crime according to the fbi director because there was no intentional misconduct in connection. mens rea that maybe an extension that is a little far but here you have a white caller crime being told no intention, no crime there are federal regulations to put you in prison and mens rea is not attached to most of them it could be they filled up the platform wrong when they used plastic instead of paper. step number one the give everybody the hillary rule all bosnia read mens rea and would never be do to fix the law everybody should be treated as well at least as hillary clinton including businessmen and women. the other is over criminalization issue that is not in one of the bills but put together by senator specter and i would recommend it to be picked up to do of federal bill to have a commission of all the military guys but unless congress votes no but then it could have been. to the same thing for federal laws. we have between two and 4,000 federal laws let's allow binge of judges to get together what is redundant, yesterday's news news, a federal block carjacking all states already making it a crime there was a headline case so now it is a federal crime. there is a real opportunity to appeal that back then that would allow us to do that in those bases that are not part of national defence that our expensive danceable asset portraiture with president tomorrow could solve the problem by saying the feds will get involved with the list of who has done good stuff with the asset forfeiture reform the you have to be convicted before they steal your stuff and when they do it goes into the state budget not to the sheriff because that is an incentive it is better to go to the general budget because the way it doesn't enrich them but then the matter of money goes to federal government in the administration stop that and now there is a pipeline around civil asset forfeiture in the state's the president could stop that tomorrow even without the law but that would be helpful. >> even a single asset forfeiture, with a legal background we do believe it is a moral hazard for the staff at the local level. at the federal level is a proper it is it civil-rightsss a that congress can talk about that standard they believe is consistent or is that over stepping? >> i suspect most don't know the history of civil asset forfeiture if you ever watched miami vice andn nearly '80s as they would run drugs up from mexico so let's stop the drug flow by taking away the property of the bad guys that seems like a bad idea but who is indicted when the assets are taken? what is guilty? the asset the $40,000 in cash that is guilty of the crime is that constitutional? i didn't know that #constitutional rights but the owner of their property rights in their rights to property are violated. let me also go back to address sentencing reformeal judge prior was included among the 11 candidates that donald trump might select he has done a great job again before he was a federal judge he led on sentencing reform post release alexis de tocqueville explained that what makes america truly beauty -- unique isun how we take care of each other voluntarily and frankly here is where they have dropped the ball iry would encourage everybody in this room to engage more this is what the nation requires to be a healthy and prosperous nation but in terms of confinement one is for the federal government to take over the bail bond program the constitutiono be contemplates it has to be set at an appropriate rate and not too high but the idea of government to take over the function is a bad idea. but while some of the isincarced incarcerated going back to melos school experience one last time what is the purpose of prison? it is to lock up bad people. uncontroverten? we need to do much better job to help people become productive members of society. >> what do members need to see with the clock running with this congress and elem president?en what elements are the most beneficial? >> all of the above. [laughter] specifically i really think we're at a watershed moment that you mention this are a of sentencing we do need to do a better job when we abolish federal parole we're tough on crime to monitor those that may have a riskeveral we're also reckless. in the asset forfeiture debate it is something the federal government provides and takes away from the powers of the state'sk to the however looking to the federal government that is a bit too far so you need the state's individual reform to put handcuffs on their law enforcement agencies to deal with equitable sharing. they can run these agreements to the attorney general that really gets away even if the legislature says you and to protect thedivii rights that allowing other individuals to go around. >> we will bring this part of the discussion to a close to set the stage i think theur c panelist working on these issues of members of congress and they're only two ways to affect the number of people better currently in the federal prison system that is the number you sent into the prison in the number you letanck out we couldn't talk much about post release but i did want to be clear in my comments that is currently not prominent in any the congressional bills that are discussed you can now ask questions related to that but why do we have a number of staff members ino dust attendance today to have a criminal taskforce bill but i would also encourage the members of the staff to look at what could be done postprisot release as prison fellowshiphe at is the core for the restoration of those affected in you can truly do that with somebody pays back their debt or never are allowed to in america. >> state your name. >> director of the campaign that they steal each of you for being here with your a leadership. i a at m1 during which each of your organizations would advise the presumptive nominee use on what the priorities should be on criminal-justice reform in the coming years. >> i did not set the stage well enough so i will now so where possible please direct to one of of panelist if it is to all of us just be short or say pass. thank yo 84 read that question prison fellowship believes each human being is created in the image of god and each life is of equal value by friends on the left and the secular world equate that with fairness to say people are equal with their to the founding documents so talk about a resumption i think it is something the laws have been passed processing people almost in the spreadsheet manner that is the consistent with american values each wife having a value before we take away somebody's life liberty pursuit of happiness is sol case versos down so we're not endorsing specifics on this panel of sweeping legislation but that is the corner we should fight out of to go as far as vacation it is something the government should be in thehis t business but it should reduce the value of the people that go before the up process for efficiency. >> at the federal level 90% misconduct, of mrial misconduct comes at a justice only 10 percent of prosecutors worked out of that. so the next president i hope there attorney-general would take control of that at the state level i don't have an up day but there are several instances that is at the expense of peoples liberty. >> alibi to last grover whether we doing about the judge's how many of those go to illegal i was still arrested and tortured there is nowhere for me to go for help. our judges are running wild me to go to helpild wild west. i want to know you think can be done because we think there is a conflict of interest to hold them accountable but we have three judges who have retired early we will all pay for him to retire. >> to the issue there are real challenges to have heard stories of abuse i am not sure what the best legislative approach is that we need to look at it all. we shouldn't say the prosecutors always right or the judge is always right or the defendant is always right to opt in different individuals take the position that prosecutors never make a mistake or judges don't. they do i don't even knowo the answer we have to focus. >> in texas there is a case that was wrongfully incarcerated 26 years the judge and a the prosecutor swapped dna testing over sixng years had exonerated him and then to be strengthened the remedies to make sure there is not a statute of limitations for misconduct to wrongfully convict someone 20 years down the road also a lot of states have reduced solitary confinement like colorado or entirely for juvenile specialists still have people in texas and other states that our discharge directly from solitary confinement to the public we need to dramatically reduce that period because it is proven as a link to hire recidivism. >> i am very sympathetic to the situation i was prosecuted two unhappy years myself at one of three levels of government inve there is no oversight fort for prosecutors to go after somebody because they have a blank check without a boss so i understand i did wantno people to think was dismisses but to the staff in the room is a very serious issue and i wrote about it personally but it is not currently contemplated but it would be beneficial for them to look forward to in the future. >> the bigger issue is a lot of what the people believe is the reason we do have abuse in the criminal justice system now whatever level is because we have a poorly prescribed idea of what the criminal justice system is supposed to accomplish this is supposed to be a force for the state? should be the character of rehabilitative services?hi so we need to have a public conversation on what is the purpose? i could echo the point more forcefully that the pendulum has swung so far we got into the knee-jerk reaction to say tough on crime the prosecutor is always right and as you have seen that is starting to go way this is the political reality to be deliberate consideration verses a knee-jerk policycies. response. >> all the way from the chairman's table i really appreciate grover with the importance of these billsn is, o but to be concise three have heard from members that have issue with any type of mandatory minimums in what would you say to those individuals that we should do reforms to those parts of the criminal-justice system? >>. >> i think the question was retroactivity so it was really two questions. >> for both of those questions, i get back to the ida idea that perception has to ruby that we preserve people's liberty that israel is have to start so on retroactivity, what is the goal? to lock up as many as we can to reach back and grab as many as we can or to preserve the rule of law and locked up the people that we deem as committed heinous crimes? is the idea to have a cookie cutter approach with no discretion? you check off this box is in this box and that is thes. result? that they'd think flies in the face of the idea the first resumption is to protect people's individual rights and sovereignty. >> with mandatory minimum you don't consider what the victim once which could be restitution and instead politicians without knowing the facts of the case substitute their judgmentei for that of the judge he or juries to sentencing inme texas so is happenstance of you commit a crime yesterday or five years ago obviously a number of states have been amending drug laws to reduce penalties have made