Criminal-defense attorneys and others pushing to change Arizona's strict criminal-justice system say Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is undermining their efforts at the state Legislature.

In addition to prompting lawmakers to kill reform bills he dislikes, they say, he has helped draft alternatives that appear reform-friendly but, as one attorney put it, "would do almost nothing."

"(Montgomery) is essentially running things from the background," said Jared Keenan, a criminal-justice attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

"That means these heads of committees and other legislators are seeking solutions from someone who helped create Arizona's incarceration problem in the first place. And these bills he's opposing are not just Democrat bills — these are things with bipartisan support."

Reform advocates have found the Legislature's reluctance to embrace more substantial changes particularly frustrating in a year when similar efforts are picking up steam nationwide, including in other conservative states with tough-on-crime histories.

If Arizona doesn't quicken the pace, they say, the state could easily move from having the fourth-highest incarceration rate in the country to the top of the list.

Asked to respond to the criticism, Montgomery said he provides only "practical insight" and "real, objective data" to legislators, and has "never sought to tell legislators how they should vote on bills." But lawmakers themselves have done little to combat the idea that they sometimes bow to the Republican prosecutor's influence.

Last month, the speaker of the House of Representatives said of his relationship with the notoriously tough-on-crime Montgomery: “I understand what a marriage takes, and I want to stay married."

Release-credit bills illustrate divide

Among the more high-profile justice-reform efforts this session was House Bill 2270, an early-release-credit proposal sponsored by Rep. Walter Blackman, R-Snowflake.

Currently, Arizona law requires inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. Blackman's bill would have given both violent and non-violent offenders a chance to serve shorter sentences if they participated in certain prison programs and complied with all rules.

There are nearly 42,000 people in Arizona prisons. Projections based on 30 years of state Department of Corrections data indicated HB 2270 could have reduced the state's prison population by 19 percent within the next decade.

The bill had bipartisan support from lawmakers and much of the larger advocacy community, and Blackman was amenable to narrowing its scope to appease others who felt it went too far too fast.

But shortly after Montgomery told the Arizona Mirror Blackman's bill was an “ideologically driven shot in the dark,” Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, declined to give it a hearing in his House Judiciary Committee, effectively killing it.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Gilbert Republican Eddie Farnsworth had been working with Montgomery to develop an alternate early-release-credit bill.

Senate Bill 1310 would make inmates with drug-possession convictions eligible to serve shorter sentences if they completed treatment or "major self-improvement" programs in prison.

The legislation excludes anyone previously convicted of a violent or aggravated felony. It would not apply retroactively to those already in prison.

The bill breezed through the Senate and is now under consideration in the House.

"It's very confusing, because (Montgomery's) stance is supposed to be that our prison resources are not being spent on non-violent drug offenders," Keenan said.

"Yet it specifically applies only to the exact individuals Montgomery has positioned himself to say he is not incarcerating, and then it requires them to participate in programming the Department of Corrections does not consistently provide."

Sex-offender bills have similar fate

Two bills involving a chance for sex offenders to have their names taken off the state's registry followed a similar path.

House Bill 2300 — sponsored by Rep. David Stringer and Rep. Noel Campbell, both Prescott Republicans — would have allowed registered sex offenders to petition the courts for removal from the registry after five to 10 years, depending on their ages when convicted.

The legislation would have required an offender to prove that he or she "has not committed a sex offense since being required to register, is not likely to re-offend and is not a danger to the safety of others" and allowed victims to speak in response to the petition.

It went nowhere.

But House Bill 2613, co-sponsored by Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, swiftly advanced through the House and awaits review in the Senate.

That legislation also would allow offenders to petition for removal from the registry, but applicants would have to:

Be at least 35 years old;

Have been between 15 and 21 years old at the time of the offense;

Have not committed more than one offense;

Have not committed an offense involving more than one victim;

Have not committed another offense within 10 years of the first conviction;

Not be a "sexually violent" person;

Not have been sentenced to prison for the offense; and

Not have committed offenses in certain sex-crime subcategories.

"If our ultimate goal is to allow young individuals who've been convicted of an offense but are not actually predators to no longer be on the list, I don't think this is the way to do it," said Charity Clark, a Chandler-based criminal-defense attorney.

"The 35 years old seems arbitrary to me, and the bill also seems to exclude the offenses I see a lot of younger defendants charged with."

For example, Clark said, offenders charged with sexual exploitation of a minor would be ineligible to petition for removal.

"That (sexual exploitation of a minor) can include possessing an image of somebody under the age of 18 in a state of undress," she said. "As you can imagine, that happens quite a lot among people in the 17-22 age group."

During a late-February hearing, Bowers told the House Judiciary Committee he would have preferred to sponsor a broader bill, but county attorneys had agreed on the version he was presenting.

When pressed by Rep. Kirsten Engel, D-Tucson, about whether Montgomery had what she described as veto power over legislation, Bowers likened his relationship with the prosecutor to a marriage.

"If there are conditions that allow us to keep talking to each other, I’m not going to beat up my spouse or speak ill of that person and expect us to get along great," he said. "I want to keep those channels open."

Other Republican committee members said they felt it was appropriate to seek Montgomery's opinion regarding criminal-justice issues because he is a subject-matter expert.

'Public safety over ideology'

This isn't the first time justice-reform advocates have complained aboutthe influence of county prosecutors.

Last year, an extensive Arizona Republic review of justice-reform bills found that several pieces of legislation Montgomery and other county attorneys had opposed failed to advance.

Last week, Montgomery told The Republic he and other prosecutors have never held sway over policy decisions but instead use a "methodical, responsible approach to criminal-justice policy that prefers analysis to emotion and public safety over ideology."

"My office has … provided practical insight into the actual impact based on real objective data of specific policy proposals — for instance, releasing 14,000 'non-violent' offenders," he said.

"When I get asked about the accuracy of that assumption, I am going to point out that such an approach fails to account for prior violent convictions and does not account for repetitive offenders who are incarcerated after previous efforts at diversion and/or probation."

He also said he is open to proposals that "address a specific problem with a targeted solution that will contribute to reducing recidivism."

But reformers say Montgomery and other prosecutors want bills to be so specific, they would hardly help anyone.

"We’re watching the few states that are worse than we are in terms of mass incarceration institute significant overhauls of their criminal-justice systems. In the next year or two, we’re probably going to be the worst," said Nate Wade, a Pima County public defender.

"We know where the tide is going, we know what’s important to our community, and it’s frustrating to watch all of this work get stymied."

Reach the reporter at maria.polletta@arizonarepublic.com or 602-653-6807. Follow her on Twitter @mpolletta.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.