Phase I: Research and Development Phase II: Advocacy and Outreach Phase III: Legislative Campaign

Similar documents
Special Report October 2, 2018

TESTIMONY MARGARET COLGATE LOVE. on behalf of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. before the JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. of the

The Justice System Judicial Branch, Adult Corrections, and Youth Corrections

AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and

THE EFFECTIVE USE OF LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY FOR COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCIES: HOW TO PLAY AND WIN IN THE LEGISLATIVE GAME Pauline M.

2014 Kansas Statutes

Legal Definitions: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A

Legislative Advocacy Guide

Colorado Legislative Council Staff

OVERVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Session Law Creating the New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2003 New Mexico Laws ch. 75

Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission Current Enabling Statute Ohio Rev. Code Ann (2018)

CLARIFY OVERSIGHT OF REGIONALIZATION AT THE TEXAS JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Please see the attached report from the Criminal Law Section which expands upon these principles.

MISSOURI VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS¹

ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1

A Guide to Working with Members of Congress. Tips for Building a Stronger Relationship with Your Legislators

First Regular Session Seventy-second General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED. Bill Summary

Navigating the Missouri Legislative Process

An idea or need is established.

Legislative Advocacy Guide

POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT

Age Limits in the Juvenile Justice System, Criminal Violations, Delinquent Conduct and Conduct Indicating a Need for Supervision

Proposition 57: Overview of the New Transfer Hearing Process

JURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT

Representative democracy does not, by itself, ensure freedom or justice. The League itself grew out of the 70 year fight for women s suffrage.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT RECOMMENDED PROCESSING PROCEDURES

Raise the Age Presentation: 2017 NYSAC Fall Seminar. September 21, 2017

Scheduling a meeting.

NEW YORK REENTRY ROUNDTABLE ADDRESSING THE ISSUES FACED BY THE FORMERLY INCARCERATED AS THEY RE-ENTER THE COMMUNITY

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES. Parole Guidelines Annual Report

Advocacy: It s Easier than You Think!

Section 1 - Are You Eligible?

WINGS: Court-Community Partnerships to Improve Adult Guardianship. Courts in four states are piloting Working Interdisciplinary

A Program Reflection on the Evaluations of Models for Change and The National Campaign to Reform State Juvenile Justice Systems

Sentencing, Corrections, Prisons, and Jails

A Year of Achievement June 2016

Office of the District Attorney Record Retention and Destruction Schedule

Courtroom Terminology

POSITION PAPER ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BUDGET

Testimony on The Age of Criminal Responsibility and its Impact in New York State

Each specialized docket is presided over by one of the six elected judges. The presiding judge may refer the specialized docket to a magistrate.

F4 & F5 Offender Placement

The Legislative Process and You. Influencing Public Policy

ELIGIBILITY AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS Based upon Ohio Revised Code

AN ACT. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:

Arizona Legislative & Government Internship Program Internship Descriptions

DETERMINATE SENTENCING

Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction

State Legislatures. State & Local Government. Ch. 7

OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DIVISION 600 CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK AND FITNESS DETERMINATION RULES

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0094. Sponsored by: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee A BILL. for. AN ACT relating to criminal justice; amending provisions

CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING

AN ACT RELATING TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER; CREATING THE PUBLIC DEFENDER COMMISSION TO OVERSEE THE OPERATION OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

Juvenile Justice An Overview for New Legislators

Empowering the People and Communities That Change the World 1415 West Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC

District Attorney Accomplishments

LACERA LEGISLATIVE POLICY

THE ACLU OF KENTUCKY 2019 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA OUR PRIORITIES AND GOALS FOR FRANKFORT

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 H 2 HOUSE BILL 725 Committee Substitute Favorable 6/12/13

Judicial Candidate Questionnaire: Judge Version

An Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota

Justice Reinvestment in Oklahoma Initial Work Group Meeting

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN STUDY COMPLETED: 2002 AN OVERVIEW OF MICHIGAN COURTS

Certificates of Rehabilitation in Fresno County Filing Instructions

Lobbyist Laws and Rules. Fiscal Year

Criminal Justice Reforms

Working Draft of Proposed Rules (Redline Version)

Constitutional Amendments

Abby Anderson Exec.Dir., Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Co Chair, National Juvenile Justice Network Executive Committee

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1308

Testimony before the: Senate Judiciary Criminal Justice Committee

North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections

20 Questions for Delaware Attorney General Candidates

Arkansas Current Incarceration Crisis

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2015 H 1 HOUSE BILL 399. Short Title: Young Offenders Rehabilitation Act. (Public)

COLORADO COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

INTRODUCTION. Cut, April 1, 2016,

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER STATE OF MARYLAND

CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CHAPTER Senate Bill No. 1960

Advocacy & Lobbying 101

North Carolina Organizing and Responding to the Exploitation and Sexual Trafficking Of Children

Analysis of Senate Bill

Drug Policy Task Force Date: September 27, 2012 Time: 10:00 1:00

6/13/2016. Second Chances Setting Aside a Juvenile Adjudication. Why Expunge an Adjudication (aren t juvenile records sealed)?

Select Post-Conviction Moments in Adult Criminal Cases

Vermont. Justice Reinvestment State Brief:

Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Sex Offense/Offender Task Force Recommendations FY

INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITING YOUR BILL

ADVOCATE S TOOL BOX. What is Lobbying? Lobbying refers to the support or opposition of a particular piece of legislation at any level of government.

Bits and Pieces to Master the Exam Random Thoughts, Trivia, and Other Facts (that may help you be successful AP EXAM)

WAYS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY 8CAN HELP YOUR CASE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. ASSEMBLY, No th LEGISLATURE

Guide to State-level Advocacy for NAADAC Affiliates

ll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION

Richmond Family/Youth Court Committee (RFCC)

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN SMITH HOWLEY. Public Policy Director, National Center for Victims of Crime

Transcription:

The Colorado 2011-2012 Direct File Campaign Juvenile or Adult, Let a Judge Decide The Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition is dedicating to ensuring excellence in juvenile defense and advocacy, and justice for all children and youth in Colorado. In the November of 2010, the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition became a nonprofit organization and received a grant from the Public Welfare Foundation to reform the prosecution of youth as adults. CJDC opened an office, hired staff, and went to work planning a direct file campaign for the 2012 legislative session. The Juvenile or Adult, Let a Judge Decide campaign spearheaded the passage of two bills: House Bill 1139, which keeps direct filed youth in juvenile facilities and requires hearing before transfer to an adult jail; and House Bill 1271, which substantially reformed the direct file statute, restricting the age and offenses of youth subject to prosecutorial direct file, providing a reverse-transfer hearing for youth to seek transfer back to juvenile court, and eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing in most cases. Phase I: Research and Development Phase II: Advocacy and Outreach Phase III: Legislative Campaign Strategic Planning Legal Cirriculum Data Collection & Analysis Statement of Principles Coalition Building Materials Development Legislative Sponsors Legal Training Policy Report Coalition Action Lobbying Media The Partnership of Funders and National Organizations This campaign was funded, nurtured, and supported with the assistance of multiple national partners. The Public Welfare Foundation gave CJDC its start as a nonprofit and the ability to develop and execute a significant campaign. The Chinook Fund and the Denver Foundation in Colorado also provided financial support to CJDC s Direct File Project. The Campaign for Youth Justice provided guidance, training, technical assistance, and support throughout the campaign. M & R Strategies, Inc. on behalf of the MacArthur Funding Collaborative Juvenile Justice Campaign provided lobbying and media services and consulting support during the legislative session. Additional supporters of the direct file effort included the National Juvenile Defender Center, the National Juvenile Justice Network, and the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. Local partners include the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and mental health advocates.

The Foundation of Previous Legislative Reform Efforts The foundation for this campaign was laid nearly a decade prior. Colorado expanded the prosecution of youth as adults in a special legislative session in 1993. In 2003, a Republican legislator, Lynn Hefley, began to seek the reform of life without parole sentencing for juveniles that was ultimately successful in 2006. Two years later, a significant direct file reform bill sponsored largely by Democrats was vetoed in 2008. During the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions, two bills became law to reform aspects of the pre-trial detention of youth in adult jails. In 2010, a bi-partisan sponsored bill took initial steps in reforming our direct file statute. CJDC s Executive Director was involved in the 2008-2010 legislative efforts in a volunteer capacity, after litigating the constitutionality of the direct file statute as an appellate attorney in the Colorado Supreme Court. CJDC also participated in an unsuccessful JLWOP reform bill in 2011 which introduced staff to the legislature and some of the key players we faced in 2012. Phase I: Research and Development CJDC s Direct File Project was developed to attack the prosecution of youth as adults in the courtroom, in the community, and in the capitol. The first phase of our project focused on strategic planning and developing tools for the campaign. CJDC developed a Statement of Principles regarding the prosecution of youth as adults and requested state judicial data for a policy paper on the prosecution of youth as adults from 1999 to 2010. CJDC also developed a curriculum to train attorneys on the zealous defense of youth in adult criminal court. CJDC conducted two strategic planning sessions in our first year. The first session was held in January 2011, for the development of the organization and to review and advance the roadmap for the Direct File Project. The second session was held in July 2011 with our coalition partners and a couple legislators to brainstorm the launch and work of the campaign through the legislative session that began in January 2012 and ended in May 2012. The Statement of Principles was modeled after the Campaign for Youth Justice Statement of Principles, adapted to address our focus in Colorado. This tool was used in coalition building to introduce individuals and organizations to the issues and solicit their support. This tool was particularly helpful in the early stages of our campaign when there was no legislation pending. A policy report was designed to make our case for reform; to educate stakeholders and coalition partners on the history and problems of prosecuting youth as adults and to make recommendations that were data-driven, research-based, and promoted best practices. We began this process by requesting all the data we could from the state judicial office and hiring a policy research firm to crunch the numbers and analyze the data of over 1800 direct file cases. The Curriculum was developed with CJDC s Direct File Litigation Committee, which was established in 2008 to improve the defense of youth as adults. CJDC created an 80 page outline with case law and litigation strategies, and a resource disk that included volumes of materials from the National Juvenile Defender Center s annual leadership summits. The curriculum included challenges to the jailing of youth in adult facilities and attacks on the direct file statute.

Phase II: Advocacy and Outreach With these tools CJDC began reaching out to build the coalition, develop policy and garner legislative sponsors, drafting the policy paper and information materials, and training attorneys. CJDC distributed the Statement of Principles document to reach out to potential allies and participated in a variety of community events with local organizations to further build the base of support for direct file reform. An advisory group of key coalition partners was created to steer coalition building, action, and the direct file campaign itself. The advisory committee participated in strategic planning and began meeting monthly May 2011, and the larger coalition began meeting monthly September 2011. CJDC kicked off the campaign with the Family Support Network at the 1 st Annual Run/Walk for Juvenile Justice in October 2011. CJDC developed drafts of bills that were reviewed and discussed with our Direct File Litigation Committee and Coalition partners. The drafts were improved to include issues raised by attorneys, mental health, and disability advocates. The results of our direct file data research and analysis were also considered in the drafting process to maximize the effect of change. Our attention then turned toward soliciting legislators who would sponsor the bills. Our priority bill was House Bill 1271, the direct file reform bill, so we worked hard to identify and bring on strong legislators from both parties. Our co-prime sponsors in the House of Representatives, where the bill was introduced, were Republican BJ Nikkel, the Majority Whip whose son had been threatened with direct file years prior and Democrat Beth McCann, a former prosecutor and former Manager of Public Safety for the City of Denver. In the Senate we gained the sponsorship of unlikely co-primes with Democrat Angela Giron and Republican Tim Neville. Sponsorship of House Bill 1139, the jail removal bill, was entirely Democratic: Representative Claire Levy (our champion from 2008 to 2011), and Senator Lucia Guzman. Throughout our campaign, CJDC developed educational and outreach materials to describe the problems of prosecuting youth as adults and the solutions for reform. We partnered with the Campaign for Youth Justice to hire a firm that designed our campaign slogan and logo: CJDC had previously attended the Campaign for Youth Justice meeting on polling the public regarding the prosecution of youth as adults. We incorporated the findings of the October 2011 polling report by GBA Strategies in our campaign messaging and materials.

With our direct file curriculum, CJDC partnered with the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar to present three hour trainings on direct file defense during their annual Road Show at seven locations across the state. Each location included an expert on adolescent development and representatives from the adult and juvenile corrections systems. CJDC training over 150 lawyers on direct file defense and engaged the defense bar in the direct file campaign. CJDC continued work to develop the themes, chapters, and context of our policy paper throughout this period. The policy paper was a major project assisted by many organizations and individuals. Locally, CJDC engaged the Colorado Fiscal Policy Center and the Bell Policy Center to look at specific aspects of report. The Bell Policy Center researched expenditures by the Colorado Department of Corrections on an adult prison for youth since its inception. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Center provided some analysis and resource references on fiscal impact. CJDC organized a policy paper committee to review drafts of the report and participate in a review meeting to assist in the drafting process and engage important allies. The paper was reviewed by the Campaign for Youth Justice, M&R Strategies, and many other experts and attorneys. Ultimately CJDC hired a former columnist to edit and refine the report. Phase III: Legislative Campaign The legislative session commenced in January 2012. The first bill introduced was House Bill 1139, the jail removal bill. After meetings with stakeholders, the jail removal bill received support from the District Attorney s Council and the Sherriff s Association, which sealed its passage. Testimony in support of the bill was favorable led by Nicole Miera, whose brother James Stewart committed suicide while confined in solitary confinement at 17 in an adult jail. The bill received unanimous votes at every legislative hearing and floor vote in both houses. Governor Hickenlooper signed House Bill 1139 into law on March 15, 2012. The bill went into immediate affect and defense lawyers stood at the ready with motions to remove their clients from adult jails the minute the bill was signed. The Governor was flanked with the legislative sponsors and also Nicole Miera and her mother, Barbara Stewart, holding James picture. This victory helped propel the direct file campaign with whispers of this is the year we win direct file across the statehouse. The political climate was mixed; Colorado had just finished a contested redistricting battle, it was an election year, but there were also term-limited legislators, like co-prime sponsor Representative BJ Nikkel, who wanted this bill for their legacy. House Bill 1271 was introduced in February of 2012. M&R Strategies engaged in the campaign at this time by hiring media strategists and well-connected lobbyists prior to the first legislative hearing. Intermountain Strategies prepared press releases, obtained an editorial board meeting with the Denver Post, had solid press contacts that led to an article in the New York Times, and assisted with social media buzz. M&R hired a Republican lobbyist with strong ties to Republican leadership who worked closely with our Republican sponsor, and a team of Democrat-leaning lobbyists who worked to ensure the votes of likely allies, bring swing votes our way, and maintained close ties with our moderate Democratic Governor s office.

Prior to the first legislative hearing on the direct file bill, CJDC launched its policy paper, Re-Directing Justice: The Consequences of Prosecuting Youth as Adults and the Need to Restore Judicial Oversight. The report launch occurred at a legislative luncheon at the capitol, and presented speakers Marc Levin from Right on Crime of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Jessica Sandoval, from the Campaign for Youth Justice. The key findings of the report were released and reported on by the media: 85% of cases involved mid-low level felonies 15% were homicides (only 5% first degree murder) 22% were dismissed (75% of dismissals white youth) 95% of all cases were plea bargained 25% resulted in probation or deferred sentences 82% youth offender sentences were Black/Hispanic Opposition to the direct file reform bill was intense but limited to prosecutorial opponents. The Colorado District Attorney s Council, the State Attorney General, and two former Governor s opposed House Bill 1271. Their presence at the capitol was frequent and domineering once broad legislative support for the direct file bill became apparent. Several meetings were held with legislators, stakeholders, and CJDC with the Governor s staff and the Governor himself. Ultimately the message of fairness, checks and balances, and due process won the day; in addition to compelling data demonstrating direct filed youth were not the worst of the worst and judicial oversight was warranted to prevent abuses and provide equal opportunities. With direct file prosecutors had total control over which charges to file, which court to file them in, and with the vast plea bargaining involved-- which sentence the youth would receive. Support was garnered from Libertarian leaning Republicans who stood up to their local prosecutors and firmly believed there was too much power in government lawyers over the lives of children. This was not a bill about criminal justice; this was a bill about children, youth, and families. Legislative committee hearings were hotly debated over hours with extensive lobbying behind the scenes that involved some of the highest levels of party leadership. The political power of prosecutors was overcome by Republican support and Democratic unity, established and maintained by professional lobbyists and the Juvenile or Adult, Let a Judge Decide Coalition, with key representatives from mental health, disability, child welfare, and community groups. House Bill 1271 passed the House of Representatives (Republican controlled) by a vote of 45-20, and the Senate (Democratic controlled) by a vote of 22-13. This wide margin of bi-partisan support was essential in obtaining the signature of Governor Hickenlooper on April 20, 2012. The four cornerstones of this successful campaign: (1) a data-driven policy paper, (2) broad coalition support, (3) substantial media coverage, and (4) professional lobbying was incredibly effective in obtaining some of the most significant juvenile justice reform in Colorado history.