Republican realignment

The bill has enjoyed the effective sponsorship of state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles. But it has attracted bipartisan support, intensifying a nationwide shift among Republicans toward serious interest in recasting criminal justice issues around fiscal responsibility, devolved government power and a culture of mercy.

As Mitchell pointed out, U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Ia., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., all put their names to a January letter warning the Justice Department that seizures under federal asset forfeiture law had become “overzealous” and oppressive. “We are concerned that these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities,” they wrote.

For libertarians, the shift marked a welcome change of heart among Republicans in California and nationwide. FreedomWorks noted approvingly that at least one California Republican withdrew his opposition over the course of the bill’s journey through the state Senate.

“State Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Temecula, who voted against SB443 in committee, rose in support when it reached the floor of the chamber. ‘This bill basically says that the government cannot seize the property of innocent people. Asset forfeiture is an important tool for law enforcement, and I strongly believe that the guilty should be subject to forfeiting their assets gained by illegal means,’ said Stone. ‘At the same time, however, the government should not be able to permanently seize property of people that are suspected of committing a crime. [T]his bill simply allows for innocent people to get their property back if they are not convicted of a criminal activity,’ he added.”

Horror stories

Although California has seen its share of asset forfeitures run amok, they rarely get traction on their own, so often happening out of the public eye. In late April, however, the Drug Policy Alliance helped fuel momentum for SB443 by releasing a Southland-centric report on the dark side of asset forfeiture in California.

In one anecdote, the Orange County Register reported, “retired Redondo Beach police Lt. Diane Goldstein described how a food truck owner had $10,000 in cash seized by police on the grounds that a drug dog detected narcotics on the money. While charges were never filed, and a judge ordered the money returned, the money had already been divvied up with the federal government, and the man didn’t have the financial resources to pursue the issue further.”

Deep roots

Thanks to their personal and political history, some longtime California Republicans have found themselves at the center of the broader debate on criminal justice reform. In the early 1990s, Patrick Nolan, onetime Republican leader in the Assembly, spent 33 months in prison for felony racketeering in the wake of the FBI’s 1988 Shrimpscam bribery sting. His experience there led to a decades-long effort to spearhead reforms targeting sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, drug policy, prison rape and recidivism rates, to name a few.

As the New Yorker recently recounted, Nolan’s labors have been instrumental in shifting the center of gravity among conservatives and libertarians toward a proactive stance on changing the way the U.S. approaches criminal justice. “When conservatives did venture into California, last November, to help pass Proposition 47,” the New Yorker observed, “the measure required that two-thirds of any money saved be funnelled into alternative correctional programs.” According to Nolan, “we know that just releasing prisoners or diverting them from prisons without services would increase crime.”

“Nolan has a wish list of additional reforms that he will pitch to conservatives. He would like to see abusive prosecutors lose their licenses. He would require the police to videotape interrogations from beginning to end, not just a confession that may have been improperly extracted.”

On paper, support in California for outright legalization may be as high as 65 percent. Analysts believe the Golden State market for pot may top $10 billion in the next five years.

But sentiment is one thing and policy is another. As battle lines are drawn, the quest to legalize the drug could prove more daunting than polls indicate.

Beyond skeptical voters, unlikely but powerful opponents are scattered across California. As the effort to place legalization on the 2016 ballot proceeds, residents should expect the controversy to sharpen in the year ahead.

Pot reformers are a fractious bunch. Although strongly united around the goal of legalized marijuana, shifting alliances and dispersed centers of power have made for disagreement in the past as to exactly which set of activists should lead or unite the movement.

Among others, leading pot organizations include the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, all of which “have begun discussions about the ballot measure’s language and campaign strategy,” the Orange County Register reported.

According to the Register, law enforcement believes it faces a daunting challenge of its own. “We really need to get our act together,” said Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, who opposes legalization. “California sheriffs and California police chiefs don’t have big PACs. If law enforcement does it alone in the campaign, it won’t work.”

Vested interests

But looming over the initiative process is a simple problem. Longtime activists have reason to fear that, despite their enthusiasm, they could lose control of the legalization process completely. Medical marijuana operators have grown especially concerned.

At the recent Emerald Cup’s 2016 California marijuana legalization panel, for instance, leading pot advocates chewed over the challenge. Steve DeAngleo of Harborside Health Center, California’s largest medical pot dispensary, insisted regulations must protect the interests that built the pot industry from the ground up.

Reported Jonathan Greenberg on the Huffington Post, “DeAngelo and other panelists warned that without a collaborative consensus document that represents advocacy organizations, growers, consumers, the incarcerated, industry workers and the state, lobbyists for Big Tobacco or casino or agribusiness will move in and create their own legalization bill that would dominate and transform the industry.”

DeAngelo and his allies, Greenberg noted, favor “banning out-of-state investors and growers for three years post legalization” — a policy adopted by Colorado, where recreational use is legal and regulated. “He also believes that small growers should be taxed at lower rates than large corporations, and that size limitations for cannabis farms might also be useful.”

Of course, legalization supporters could forge ahead without giving much of a say to the old-line medical pot growers. But there are political risks.

Dale Sky Jones, the executive chancellor of an Oakland “cannabis college,” told Mother Jones that the so-called “base” could set legalization efforts back years. “I don’t know if you can pass an initiative without the base,” she said. “I know the base is willing and able to be extremely disruptive. They have it in them. And then you are looking at 2020” as the soonest a legalization initiative could be placed on the state ballot.

First mover advantage

Although some venture capitalists are circling the potential legal pot market, and the tobacco industry is widely expected to do the same, California’s native American tribes may beat both to the punch.

“The Pinoleville Pomo Nation has contracted with Colorado-based United Cannabis and Kansas-based FoxBarry Farms to grow thousands of marijuana plants in greenhouses on its 99-acre rancheria,” the Press Democrat reported. “FoxBarry, which also invests in tribal casinos, is financing and managing the project.”

According to the Sacramento Bee, until pot is legalized, the $10 million Mendocino County facility “will sell marijuana only for authorized medical users and dispensaries,” FoxBarry’s president, Barry Brautman, insists.

Meanwhile, six others states are poised to legalized pot, according to Politics Cheat Sheet: Massachusetts, Missouri, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada and Arizona.

A leader 19 years ago with Prop. 215, California could find itself falling behind legalization in its four closest Western neighbors.