× Expand AP Photo/Brynn Anderson

When Senator Chuck Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, introduced a major sentencing reform bill last October, his move signaled that Congress intended to take decisive action on revamping the country's draconian sentencing laws. With the November elections on the horizon and Americans souring on their status as the country with the world's largest prison population, federal lawmakers may pick up the pace on crafting a reform package.

The Iowa Republican's bill, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, aims to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses and promote re-entry services for offenders who are nearing the end of their sentences. The bill would also apply provisions of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactively: Crack cocaine offenders sentenced after August 3, 2010, would be eligible for shorter sentences.

During the so-called war on drugs in the 1980s, Congress established mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes, which deprived judges of an important tool: the ability to exercise their own discretion in meting out prison sentences to fit the individual case. Instead, judges had to impose specific prison sentences as mandated by law. That change fueled an unprecedented increase in the federal prison population: In 1980, there were 24,640 people serving sentences in federal prisons; by 2014, that number jumped up to nearly 215,000.

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the subsequent battle over President Obama's pick to replace him have distracted Republicans from sentencing reform. Although momentum has slowed on a plan that could have attracted strong bipartisan support, criminal justice reform advocates believe that the lull may help federal lawmakers craft a more popular package.

Molly Gill, the federal legislative director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums wants to see more work done on the Grassley bill. "We don't actually know the impact of the bill," she says. "The Congressional Budget Office hasn't done an analysis." However, the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, a bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel established by Congress, completed a study on federal prisons in January. The task force found that that elimination of mandatory minimums for low-level drug offenders would shrink the federal prison population by 60,000 people and save more than $5 billion.

But certain sections of the Grassley bill raise serious concerns. One provision would establish new mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of providing "goods and services" to terrorists and for any person found guilty of developing weapons of mass destruction or furnishing them to a country currently under an arms embargo. Another provision related to domestic violence would require a minimum sentence for any individual found guilty of traveling across state lines to purposely injure, stalk, or harass a partner or spouse.

Extending mandatory minimum sentencing to other crimes troubles criminal justice advocates since little research has been conducted in these areas. New sentencing rules would also strip judges of their sentencing prerogatives and recalls the problems associated with the past legislation such as the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. That measure, which received little scrutiny at the time because Congress wanted to act quickly, established the very framework that Congress is now attempting to reform. "It's really important for Congress to know what information is in the bill before it comes up for a vote," Gill says.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can... SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Republicans and Democrats alike supported many crime policies in the tough-on-crime era, says Gill. "It's going to take a bipartisan solution [today, too]." A coalition of liberal and conservative groups is determined to impress upon lawmakers that federal prison sentencing guidelines need to be completely revamped. "These are groups that really don't agree on anything else, except criminal justice reform," says Holly Harris, the executive director of U.S. Justice Action Network. "How often do you see Americans for Tax Reform and the ACLU in the same meeting?"

With healthy public support for sentencing reform, Harris believes that a well-designed bill can secure passage in the Senate. A February 24 Pew Research survey found that 63 percent of respondents viewed a retreat from mandatory minimum sentencing as a "good thing."

While movement on the Grassley bill has been slow, its prospects for passage increased on Tuesday when Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois joined 15 other Republicans to support the bill. Kirk's decision is a big win for proponents of the legislation as Grassley and other co-sponsors work to implement other changes that will attract more conservative support. Fifteen Democrats have also signed onto the measure.

However, some of Grassley's Republican colleagues fear that eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing will increase crime. Unless the Judiciary chair can muster up the votes he needs to pass the sentencing reform bill, it will likely die in the Senate before lawmakers hit the campaign trail in the fall. Yet Harris sees the November election as a plus. Senators like Kirk, who is finishing up his first term in the Senate and faces a formidable challenger in U.S. Representative Tammy Duckworth in the fall, could help move the bill. "Senators who are going to have tough re-elections, I think you'll see them voting for criminal justice reform," Harris says confidently.

Congress has been slow to enact similar federal-level changes, but many states have embraced the movement toward ending mandatory minimum sentencing and other tough-on-crime era policies.

Once notorious for its crowded prisons, Texas has reduced its prison population through reforms that included drug treatment programs that have helped more people avoid prison time. After the Texas reforms were implemented, recidivism rates declined, from 28 percent prior to reforms to 22.6 percent according to the latest data.

The original mandatory minimum sentencing laws treated offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine differently. At the time, lawmakers incorrectly believed that powder cocaine, which was primarily used by white Americans, was less dangerous than crack, which was used primarily by African Americans. A person convicted of possessing five grams of crack cocaine received the same minimum sentence as an individual convicted of possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine. This disparity increased the numbers of black offenders in federal prisons. While the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced sentencing variations between crack and powder cocaine, certain discrepancies remain.

Harris believes that sentencing reform is a clear case where federal lawmakers should look to state models. "We've made a compelling case that these reforms are working in the states," she explains. "They're saving money and they're lowering crime and recidivism rates."