Latest

[Ed: Good to see the vote was unanimous -- someone tell Hillary Clinton. I heard the executive director of the Sentencing Commission speak at a conference last spring, and she was very passionate about wanting to see good things happen. It looks like the commissioners felt the same way. I've pasted here a few releases and announcements from various groups about this below. - Dave] News Release U.S. Sentencing Commission One Columbus Circle NE Washington, DC 20002-8002 For Immediate Release December 11, 2007 U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION VOTES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPLY AMENDMENT RETROACTIVELY FOR CRACK COCAINE OFFENSES Effective Date for Retroactivity Set for March 3, 2008 WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 11, 2007) — The United States Sentencing Commission unanimously voted today to give retroactive effect to a recent amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Retroactivity of the crack cocaine amendment will become effective on March 3, 2008. Not every crack cocaine offender will be eligible for a lower sentence under the decision. A Federal sentencing judge will make the final determination of whether an offender is eligible for a lower sentence and how much that sentence should be lowered. That determination will be made only after consideration of many factors, including the Commission’s direction to consider whether lowering the offender’s sentence would pose a danger to public safety. In addition, the overall impact is anticipated to occur incrementally over approximately 30 years, due to the limited nature of the guideline amendment and the fact that many crack cocaine offenders will still be required under Federal law to serve mandatory five- or ten-year sentences because of the amount of crack involved in their offense. On November 1, 2007, after a six-month congressional review period, the Commission’s amendment to the Federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses took effect. The amendment was intended as a step toward reducing some of the unwarranted disparity currently existing between Federal crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 specifically authorized the Commission to provide for retroactive effect of amendments that result in lower penalties for classes of offenses or offenders, as this amendment could. The Commission made its decision on retroactivity of the crack cocaine amendment after months of deliberation and years of examining cocaine sentencing issues. It solicited public comment on the issue of retroactivity and received over 33,000 letters or written comments, almost all of which were in favor of retroactivity. Last month, it held a full-day hearing on the issue of retroactivity and heard from key stakeholders in the federal criminal justice community. The Commission considered a number of factors during its deliberations, including the purpose for lowering crack cocaine sentences, the limit on any reduction allowed by the amendment, whether it would be difficult for the courts to apply the reduction, and whether making the amendment retroactive would raise public safety concerns or cause unwarranted sentencing disparity in the federal system. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the statutory purposes of sentencing are best served by retroactive application of the amendment. Mindful of public safety and judicial resource concerns, the Commission today issued direction to the courts on the limited nature of this and all other retroactive amendments and on the need to consider public safety in each case. The Commission delayed the effective date of its decision on retroactivity in order to give the courts sufficient time to prepare for and process these cases. The Commission’s actions today, as well as promulgation of the original amendment for crack cocaine offenses, are only a partial step in mitigating the unwarranted sentencing disparity that exists between Federal powder and crack cocaine defendants. The Commission has continued to call on Congress to address the issue of the 100-to-1 statutory ratio that drives Federal cocaine sentencing policy. Only Congress can provide a comprehensive solution to a fundamental unfairness in Federal sentencing policy. The Commission has consistently expressed its readiness and willingness to work with Congress and others in the criminal justice community to address this very important issue. The bipartisan United States Sentencing Commission, an independent agency in the judicial branch of the federal government, was organized in 1985 to develop national sentencing policy for the federal courts. The resulting sentencing guidelines help to ensure that similar offenders who commit similar offenses receive similar sentences. http://www.ussc.gov/PRESS/rel121107.htm

---

For Immediate Release Date: December 11, 2007 Sentencing Commission votes in favor of crack cocaine retroactivity WASHINGTON, D.C.: Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the nation's leading sentencing reform organization with 13,000 members -- many of whom are incarcerated people and their families -- praises the U.S. Sentencing Commission for its courage and leadership on improving crack cocaine sentencing policies for future defendants and current prisoners. Today in an historic vote, the Commission agreed to allow prisoners serving crack cocaine sentences to seek sentence reductions that went into effect on November 1. Retroactivity will affect 19,500 federal prisoners, almost 2,520 of whom could be eligible for early release in the first year. Federal courts will administer the application of the retroactive guideline, which is not automatic. Courts may refuse to grant sentence reductions to individuals if they believe they could pose a public safety risk. "The Sentencing Commission made the tough but fair decision to remedy injustice, showing courage and leadership in applying the guideline retroactively. Clearly, justice should not turn on the date an individual is sentenced,” said Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM. "Retroactivity of the crack guideline not only affects the lives of nearly 20,000 individuals in prison but that of thousands more - mothers, fathers, daughters and sons - who anxiously wait for them to return home," said Stewart. Many FAMM members, including Lamont and Lawrence Garrison, will benefit from retroactivity. Arrested just months after graduating from Howard University, Lamont received 19 years and Lawrence received 15 years, respectively, after being accused of conspiring to distribute crack and powder cocaine. Both brothers could receive sentence reductions of between three and four years. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has repeatedly advised Congress since 1995 that there is no rational, scientific basis for the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences. The Commission has also identified the resulting disparity as the "single most important" factor in longer sentences for blacks compared to other racial groups. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that judges can consider the unfairness of the 100-to-1 ratio between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences and may impose a sentence below the crack guideline in cases where the guideline sentence is too severe. However, neither the new guideline nor its retroactivity changes the statutory mandatory minimums that retain the 100-to-1 quantity disparity between crack and powder cocaine. "To insure equal justice for all defendants, Congress must act to address the mandatory minimums that created the cocaine sentencing disparity in 1986," said Stewart. FAMM spearheaded the effort to make the crack cocaine guideline change apply to people already in prison, helping generate over 33,000 letters to the Sentencing Commission in support of retroactivity. FAMM members from across the country also attended the Commission's public hearing on retroactivity in Washington, D.C. on November 13 and the vote on December 11, bearing photographs of their incarcerated loved ones. Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) advocates for fair and proportionate sentencing laws. For more information, visit www.famm.org or email [email protected].

---

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION APPROVES CRACK REFORM FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS The day after the Supreme Court affirmed a judge's decision to sentence below the guideline range based on the unfairness of the crack cocaine sentencing disparity, the United States Sentencing Commission today voted unanimously to make retroactive its recent guideline amendment on crack cocaine offenses. The USSC's decision now makes an estimated 19,500 persons in prison eligible for a sentence reduction averaging more than two years. Releases are subject to judicial review and will be staggered over 30 years. The Sentencing Project applauds the USSC for responding at this heightened time of public awareness about excessive penalties and disparate treatment within the justice system. "The Commission's decision marks an important moment not only for the 19,500 people retroactivity will impact, but for the justice system as a whole," stated Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project. "Today's action, combined with the Court's decision yesterday, restores a measure of rationality to federal sentencing while also addressing the unconscionable racial disparities that the war on drugs has produced." The Sentencing Project estimates that once the sentencing change is fully implemented, there will be a reduction of up to $1 billion in prison costs. Because African Americans comprise more than 80% of those incarcerated for crack cocaine offenses, the sentencing reform will also help reduce racial disparity in federal prisons. The Commission sets the advisory guideline range that federal judges use when sentencing defendants. In May the Commission recommended statutory reforms and proposed to Congress an amendment to decrease the guideline offense level for crack cocaine offenses. The amendment went unchallenged by Congress and went into effect on November 1st. The Commission's action today makes that guideline change retroactive to persons sentenced prior to November 1st. The guideline changes do not affect the mandatory minimum penalties that apply to crack cocaine, which can only be addressed through Congressional action. "Justice demands that Congress take the next step and eliminate the harsh mandatory minimums for low-level crack cocaine offenses," said Mauer. The Commission's vote comes a day after the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Kimbrough v. United States that a federal district judge's below-guideline sentencing decision based on the unfairness of the 100 to 1 quantity disparity between powder and crack cocaine was permissible. In June, Sen. Joseph Biden introduced the Drug Sentencing Reform and Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, legislation which would equalize the penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses. Biden's bill, S. 1711, aims to shift federal law enforcement's focus from street-level dealers towards high-level traffickers.

News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 10, 2007 Web Site: http://MarijuanaBusinessNews.com Contact: Clifford Schaffer Email: [email protected] Number: 661-268-0442 Marijuana is Quickest Path to Millions: The New California Gold Rush The quickest and most reliable way to make a million dollars is currently the marijuana business, and thousands are rushing to cash in, according to research conducted by MarijuanaBusinessNews.com. In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medical use. The only requirement was that users obtain a recommendation from a doctor. In the following years hundreds of thousands of people have obtained recommendations for medical marijuana. Along with them came an entirely new kind of business – the marijuana compassion clubs. What started as a few small patient’s clubs in the San Francisco Bay area has grown to the point where there are estimated four hundred medical marijuana outlets openly operating in the City of Los Angeles alone. Statewide, there may be as many as a thousand – not counting delivery services. While the legalities surrounding these clubs are uncertain, the profits are not, according to Clifford Schaffer, Editor of MarijuanaBusinessNews.com. He says that the number of new millionaires being created dwarfs the California lottery. “The California lottery is advertising that they will make five new millionaires on New Year’s Day. According to our research, the marijuana business does that about twice a week in California,” said Schaffer. “The marijuana business is in absolutely phenomenal shape right now. It is the equivalent of being able to grow solid gold in your closet. It is the new California Gold Rush, and it is way bigger than the last one.” The time to make a million can be extremely short. “Our research shows that a smart operator can be a millionaire after taxes in less than a year,” said Schaffer. . “That’s not just our guess. We have found numerous examples where it already happened.” To prove the point, MarijuanaBusinessNews.com features two pages that show how fast someone can make a million dollars. One page allows users to calculate how money they will make growing marijuana, while another page gives estimates for retail sales. Users enter their basic business assumptions and the web pages show the financial results before and after taxes. Schaffer says that the opening up of the medical marijuana market has also produced a change in the kind of people in the business. “We are finding more and more small entrepreneurs going into the business,” said Schaffer. “The new entrepreneurs are not the thugs and professional criminals that have dominated the industry in the past. The majority of the people running these operations are natural-born US citizens who are both patriotic and law-abiding – with the exception of the marijuana business, of course. Except for the fact that they are in the marijuana business, they are no different than the people running any other legitimate small business. They are no different than the people you knew in high school.” As for the risks of getting busted, Schaffer says the research shows that the risk of being put out of business by law enforcement is low. “Proposition 215 removed much of the threat from local law enforcement,” said Schaffer, “and the Federal Government doesn’t have the resources. The DEA has been reduced to sending letters to landlords and throwing temper tantrums.” Schaffer points to a number of recent instances in which the DEA has raided marijuana stores but haven’t arrested anyone. “They just take all the cash and marijuana and trash the place,” said Schaffer. “They just loot the places because they don’t have the resources to do anything else. They don’t even bother to account for the money they take.” “Marijuana is de facto legal in California,” said Schaffer, “and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are not going to change it. Economics has won. The entrepreneurs have effectively negated government policy.” Clifford A. Schaffer Editor, Marijuana Business News http://www.MarijuanaBusinessNews.com 661-268-0442

[Courtesy of Vancouver Island Compassion Society] The December issue of Cannabinoid Chronicles is online and available for viewing at: http://www.thevics.com/publications/vol5/VICSNews5_4.pdf Some stories: Constitutional Challenge Hits Bump Loosen Medical Cannabis Rules, Lawyers Argue Ontario Court Ruling Challenges Cannabis Prohibition Comments on Swiss Study (Cannabis and Adolescents) Drug Disposal 101 IACM Bulletin Enjoy, Robin at the VICS

[Courtesy of Union of Medical Marijuana Providers] One day after the Union of Medical Marijuana Providers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California (case CV07-07951) challenging the DEA's tactic of sending threatening letters to hundreds of owners of Commercial Property who rent to Marijuana Providers, the House Judiciary Committee will question the agency about the practice. Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) December 10, 2007 -- The DEA, who has declared war on California's Medical Marijuana Law, began the draconian tactic of sending letters to Commercial Property owners who rent to legally authorized Medical Marijuana Providers this summer. In the letter, the DEA informed the owners of these properties that if they continue to rent to dispensaries they may face federal prosecution which could result in a possible prison sentence for up to 20 years as well as seizure of their property. The Union of Medical Marijuana Providers which was formed in part, as a direct result of the DEA's letter writing campaign, as well as L.A.'s Arts District Healing Center, have been aggressively litigating this issue in both state and federal court for the past several months (state case in Los Angeles Superior Court, case 07K21837). Just yesterday, December 6, 2007 they filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District, which requested that the Court issue an injunction stopping the DEA from continuing to send these letters. "When I saw Representative Conyers statement regarding the DEA's abuse of their power in order to thwart California's law, I knew that our legal efforts were beginning to pay off," said James Shaw, Executive Director of the Union. "The DEA has alienated too many citizens with their heavy-handed 'above the law tactics' for too long. We welcome all the support we can find in our efforts to ensure our rights are protected." Steven Schectman, the Union's chief counsel said he has contacted Representative Conyers office today in order to provide his staff copies of the litigation that was filed in both state and Federal Court. "I am hopeful we can support the Judiciary Committee in any way possible. As a result of our research and investigation of the DEA's threatening letter campaign, in preparation of our litigation, we have become the most knowledgeable group, outside the DEA, who best understands the scope and import of their tactics. We are here to help." The Union of Medical Marijuana Providers (UMMP) is a legal advocacy group based in Los Angeles, California. The Union's membership comprises legally compliant cooperatives, collectives, and caregiver groups throughout the State of California. UMMP was founded in 2007 to address the shared concerns of legally compliant medical marijuana patient groups.

[Courtesy of The Sentencing Project] SUPREME COURT RULES THAT JUDGES MAY CONSIDER HARSHNESS OF CRACK POLICY IN SENTENCING Decision Comes on Eve of U.S. Sentencing Commission Vote to Reduce Crack Sentences for Prisoners The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 today that a federal district judge's below-guideline sentencing decision based on the unfairness of the 100 to 1quantity disparity between powder and crack cocaine was permissible. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision in the case, Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330). "At a time of heightened public awareness regarding excessive penalties and disparate treatment within the justice system, today's ruling affirming judges' sentencing discretion is critical," said Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project. "Harsh mandatory sentences, particularly those for offenses involving crack cocaine, have created unjust racial disparity and excessive punishment for low-level offenses." The Court's decision in Kimbrough comes at a time of unprecedented interest in reforming the mandatory minimum sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress and hearings are expected early next year. Moreover, tomorrow, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is expected to vote on whether its recent sentencing guideline reduction for crack cocaine offenses will apply retroactively to people currently serving time in prison. Review today's decision in Kimbrough at: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/06-6330.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 3, 2007 CONTACTS: Jacob Hunter, National Event Coordinator, [email protected] or 604-803-4085, Kirk Tousaw, 604-836-1420, [email protected]. Canadians Unite Against Bill C-26 - Ask MPs "Why Prohibit Marijuana?" An exciting new grass-roots political campaign is beginning to grow across Canada. In response to the Americanization of Canadian drug policy by the Conservative Party of Canada, ordinary Canadians are standing up to ask a simple question: Why? On November 20th, 2007 the Conservative government of Canada introduced Bill C-26, imposing mandatory minimum jail sentences for cannabis (marijuana) offences in an attempt to appear "tough" on crime. In reality, the government's own experts have said time and again - most recently in the Department of Justice analysis accompanying the CPC's other "get tough" crime bill - that these extreme measures simply don't work. This American-style legislation has been met with sweeping condemnation from experts and members of the public across Canada. At noon on December 17, 2007, ordinary Canadians will be gathering at their local Member of Parliament's office to ask their MPs to vote against Bill C-26 and to force them to justify any continued support for the failed and harmful policy of marijuana prohibition. "Mandatory minimums have already failed to curb drug use and sales in the US and simply ended up filling their jails to brimming with non-violent marijuana offenders" said Kirk Tousaw, a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer that has practiced on both sides of the border, "Worse, the evidence on marijuana is pretty unequivocal: prohibition is causing more harm than it prevents. So the question for Parliament is why? Why does marijuana prohibition have the support of the House of Commons?" Tousaw, whose UBC Master's in Law thesis examined Canadian cannabis policy, said: "Cannabis and cannabis policy has been studied extensively and thoroughly by our government and many others. The conclusions are unequivocal. Prohibition doesn't reduce use or supply. Prohibition supports organized crime by providing criminals with constant revenues. Prohibition creates dangerous black markets with no controls and causes people to grow marijuana in suburban basements instead of on farms and in greenhouses. And marijuana itself is far safer than virtually all of our legal drugs, including alcohol, tobacco, prescription and over-the-counter medications. The public understands this perfectly - 63% support legalization. Yet Parliament has ignored all of this. Why?" To find out the answer, on December 17, 2007 Canadians will meet at MP's offices across Canada. Starting at noon, these citizens will ask their representatives to meet and explain what the MP's marijuana position is. If the MP supports prohibition, he or she will be asked why. Event organizer Jacob Hunter put it this way, "We want them to tell us what their reasons are. Virtually all the reasons I ever hear given to support prohibition are at odds with the scientific and expert evidence, but I think many of the MPs may simply not understand the issue well enough. It seems that our government is more willing to listen to the Bush administration than to the evidence and the Canadian public. I want to know why."

Drug Truth Network Update: 4:20 Drug War NEWS Half Hour Programs, Live Tuesdays & Wednesdays... at 90.1 FM in Houston & on the web at www.kpft.org. Those who sit silently and watch the drug war unfold are the best friends the drug barons could ever hope for. - Rev. Dean Becker 4:20 Drug War NEWS 12/10/07 to 12/16/07 now online (3:00 ea: Monday 12/10/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: Wash State Rep Roger Goodman, Judge Maria Lucia Karam, Eugene Oscapella, Fredrick Polak of Netherlands DPA, Steve Rolles of UK's Transform org, Alex Wodak of New S Wales 1 of 7 Tuesday 12/11/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: 2 0f 7 Wednesday 12/12/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: 3 0f 7 Thursday 12/13/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: 4 of 7 Friday 12/14/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: 5 of 7 Saturday 12/15/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: 6 of 7 Sunday 12/16/07 Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy: 7 of 7 NOTE: CULTURAL BAGGAGE (Broadcast on Wed) & CENTURY OF LIES (Broadcasts Tue) Hundreds of our programs are available online at www.drugtruth.net, www.audioport.org and at www.radio4all.net. We provide the "unvarnished truth about the drug war" to scores of broadcast affiliates in the US and Canada. Cultural Baggage for 12/05/07 Bob Doran, reporter for North Coast Journal, LEAP member Judge Jerry Paradis, PTSD story from ABC, Bruce Mirken of MPP MP3 MP3 LINK: http://www.drugtruth.net/007DTNaudio/FDBCB_120507.mp3 Century of Lies for 12/04/07 Judge Jerry Paradis, LEAP speaker & CBC's Divine Vegetal: Ayahuasca MP3 MP3 Link: http://www.drugtruth.net/007DTNaudio/COL_120407.mp3 Next - Century of Lies on Tues, Cutural Baggage on Wed: - Cultural Baggage 12:30 PM ET, 11:20 AM CT, 10:30 AM MT & 9:30 AM PT: New Orleans Drug Conference - Century of Lies 12:30 PM ET, 11:20 AM CT, 10:30 AM MT & 9:30 AM PT: New Orleans Drug Conference II Check out our latest videos via www.youtube.com/fdbecker: Please become part of the solution, visit our website: www.endprohibition.org for links to the best of reform. "Prohibition is evil." - Reverend Dean Becker, Drug Truth Network Producer Dean Becker 713-849-6869 www.drugtruth.net

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers Opposes DEA Tactics Pledges to Question DEA During Oversight Hearings Dear Friend, As many of you know, DEA recently launched an entirely new tactic in their continued efforts to undermine the effective implementation of medical marijuana laws in California. They have sent hundreds of letters threatening prosecution and asset forfeiture against property owners who rent to legal medical cannabis collectives – a strategy that could have ramifications for medical marijuana programs nationwide. ASA Government Affairs Director Caren Woodson has been talking to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’ (D-MI) staff and other Democratic leadership to encourage them to oppose these tactics and stand up for patients in states where medical cannabis is legal. Today, Chairman Conyers issued at a statement saying: “I am deeply concerned about recent reports that the Drug Enforcement Administration is threatening private landlords with asset forfeiture and possible imprisonment if they refuse to evict organizations legally dispensing medical marijuana to suffering patients. The Committee has already questioned the DEA about its efforts to undermine California state law on this subject, and we intend to sharply question this specific tactic as part of our oversight efforts.” In conjunction with more than fifty raids at medical cannabis collectives in California this year, the asset forfeiture threats against property owners represent the most serious challenge to patients’ access in the United States today. Conyers’ support signals the first significant Congressional opposition to the DEA’s attempted end run around voters and state lawmakers. ASA welcomes this statement and we look forward to working with Chairman Conyers to finally end DEA interference in state medical marijuana laws. Congratulations to the hundreds of ASA members who helped put grassroots strength behind our work! Keep your eyes open for an Action Alert next week to put even more support behind Conyers’ initiative, and visit www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Donate to make a contribution to support our effective advocacy today. Thank you, Steph Sherer Executive Director Americans for Safe Access -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.

[Courtesy of Prison Art Gallery] Our new Prison Art wall clocks are now on sale for the introductory price of just $16.99. Choose from among ten images created by imprisoned artists from across America. You won't fine a more beautiful, socially-conscious, or TIMELY holiday gift anywhere, even if you spend three times as much. Order yours today before TIME runs out! To view and order these gorgeous and practical works of art, please visit http://www.cafepress.com/jail/4246550. If you have any questions, please call 202-393-1511 anytime.

Florida: Public Interest Group Announces Web site, Hotline to Register Formerly Incarcerated Citizens People for the American Way Foundation (PFAW) scheduled a press conference this week to announce a large-scale effort to get thousands of formerly incarcerated citizens to the polls. Its announcement comes a day after Chief District Judge Robert Hinkle dismissed a voting rights suit filed by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and other congressional Democrats alleging that the Democratic National Committee violated the rights of millions of Florida Democrats by stripping the state of its convention delegates, a punishment for moving the presidential primary from March to Jan. 29, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. As part of PFAW's plans, a Web site and hotline will be set up to help register formerly incarcerated individuals. Nevada: Debate Ensues on Proving Restoration Eligibility with Affidavits Next week, a legislative subcommittee is scheduled to review voting rules recently adopted by the Nevada secretary of state's office that allow formerly incarcerated residents to submit sworn affidavits confirming the restoration of their voting rights. Brenda Erdoes, chief legal counsel for legislators, however, said a personal affidavit isn't enough and an individual must produce an official document from a court or agency showing rights restoration, the Las Vegas Sun reported. Matt Griffin, elections chief for Secretary of State Ross Miller, disagrees and feels an affidavit is sufficient proof. - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. Contact Information - Email: [email protected], Web: http://www.sentencingproject.org