MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Ted Cruz, Who Bragged About Backing Smarter Sentencing in 2015, Turns Against His Own Cause

The Texas senator is now allied with longtime opponents of reform in resisting the FIRST STEP Act.

Office of Ted CruzOffice of Ted CruzSen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) opposes the FIRST STEP Act, which includes sentencing reforms that are less ambitious than ones he enthusiastically supported just three years ago. Cruz has never offered a plausible explanation for this turnaround.

When the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA) last February, Cruz was one of just five members who voted against it. He offered an unsuccessful amendment that would have eliminated retroactive application of shorter sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenders, a feature he said would doom the bill.

"If you want this bill to be more than a messaging press release, if you want this bill to actually to go into the United States Code, particularly given that we have an administration and an attorney general who have come out against it," Cruz said, "I would suggest the way to maximize the chances of doing anything to fix the problem is to accept this amendment. Its chances of passing would rise dramatically." Yet now that Jeff Sessions is gone and Donald Trump has endorsed the Senate version of the FIRST STEP Act, which includes several elements of the SRCA, Cruz is still opposed to the changes.

Cruz's position is especially puzzling because not long ago he was pushing sentencing reforms that in some respects went further than the FIRST STEP Act. "The issue that brings us together today is fairness," Cruz said in February 2015, announcing his cosponsorship of the Smarter Sentencing Act. "What brings us together is justice. What brings us together is common sense. This is as diverse and bipartisan array of members of Congress as you will see on any topic, and yet we are all unified in saying commonsense reforms need to be enacted to our criminal justice system. Right now today far too many young men, in particular African American young men, find their lives drawn in with the criminal justice system, find themselves subject to sentences of many decades for relatively minor nonviolent drug infractions."

The Cruz-backed Smarter Sentencing Act, like the FIRST STEP Act, would have reduced mandatory minimum sentences for repeat drug offenders; widened the "safety valve" that exempts some low-level, nonviolent drug offenders from mandatory minimums; and retroactively applied the shorter crack sentences that Congress approved nearly unanimously in 2010. Unlike the FIRST STEP Act, the bill Cruz co-sponsored also would have reduced the 20-year, 10-year, and five-year mandatory minimums for certain drug offenders to 10 years, five years, and two years, respectively.

The FIRST STEP Act would reduce the mandatory minimum for drug offenders with one prior conviction a bit more than the Smarter Sentencing Act (from 25 to 15 years instead of 20), and its safety valve provision is somewhat more generous (allowing as many as four criminal history points rather than two). It also clarifies, unlike the Smarter Sentencing Act, that the escalating mandatory minimums for drug offenders who have guns require prior convictions, rather than multiple charges in a single case. But Cruz in 2015 endorsed broader and sharper reductions in mandatory minimums as well as the retroactivity for crack offenders he now claims to find objectionable.

"We need to recognize that young people make mistakes, and we should not live in a world of Les Miserables, where a young man finds his entire future taken away by excessive mandatory minimums," Cruz said then. "I want to commend Senator [Mike] Lee, Senator [Richard] Durbin, for their leadership on this. It's not easy to bring together this broad bipartisan coalition, but it's an issue that matters. It's an issue of justice. I'm proud to stand together, and I hope that this same group, and an even larger group, can stand together in a few months at a signing ceremony where this legislation becomes law."

Nowadays Cruz is doing his best to defeat that broad bipartisan coalition for justice, including his erstwhile allies Lee and Durbin. In a Houston Chronicle op-ed piece last July, Ames Grawert, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, said "the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions adamantly oppose" sentencing reform. "Cruz was for reform when it was popular with leading Republicans," Grawert wrote. "Now it's not, so he's against it." Yet Sessions is no longer attorney general, and the president supports the bill that Cruz is trying to block.

"Harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes have contributed to prison overpopulation and are both unfair and ineffective relative to the public expense and human costs of years-long incarceration," Cruz wrote in a 2015 essay published by the Brennan Center. "Given the undeniable costs and dubious benefits of mass, long-term incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, Congress should take steps to give judges more flexibility in sentencing those offenders. The Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015, which was introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and of which I am an original cosponsor, is a significant stride in that direction. Among other things, the bill lowers minimum sentences, cutting them in half, to give judges more flexibility in determining the appropriate sentence based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case."

Cruz seemed to believe all that at the time. Now he is allied with longtime opponents of criminal justice reform like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) in support of dumber sentencing. A few years ago, Cruz bragged about taking "a significant stride" toward fairer penalties, but now he balks at a more modest first step.

A recent poll commissioned by the Justice Action Network found that three-quarters of voters agree with the position Cruz took in 2015. Why doesn't Cruz?

Update: "I support criminal justice reform," Cruz told reporters on Tuesday. "I hope to get to yes on this bill. My central concern is that we should not be releasing violent criminals. I fully support reducing mandatory minimum prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. But for me, I draw the line at violence. And so, I'm working with the bill sponsors to make sure that violent criminals are not included. And if we exclude violent criminals, then I expect to support the bill. If we don't, then I won't be able to support the bill."

I've asked Cruz's press secretary to clarify which provision(s) of the bill he thinks will release violent criminals, and I will update this post again if I get a reply.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, if you legalize a lot of the current illegal drug use, you don't really need sentencing reform, because there would be no sentencing. Just a thought.

  • John||

    You still would have the other drugs. I don't think outside of big time smuggling operations, pot gets much attention from the feds. So, legalizing pot likely wouldn't reduce the federal prison population very much.

  • ||

    Pot isn´t the only one that needs legalizing.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    This just underscores the stupidity of the libertarian-leaning conservatives who loved Cruz a few years back. Like many Republicans, he talks about limited government, but he's fine with a massive state when it comes to civil liberties and foreign policy. How he got Amash's endorsement is beyond me.

    It's a shame, because as somebody who sympathizes with libertarianism but who remains pro-life, I should like people in this camp. I guess I'll stick with the Pauls, Amash, Massie, and (sometimes) Lee.

  • Still Curmudgeoned (Nunya)||

    He talks a good game on certain key issues, but I haven't seen much more than grandstanding. That's still better than the alternative we almost got in Beto.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    The election is over too; I doubt he's thinking six years ahead, or even two years. Maybe he's just being another dumb politician, but it is odd.

  • John||

    I can't figure out why he thinks the retroactive portion of the bill will kill it. Cruz isn't my favorite guy, but he is generally pretty straight forward in his opinions. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would invent a reason to oppose a bill so he could pretend he still supported the overall policy. He strikes me as the kind of person who would just come out and say it and not pull some poison pill routine like this.

    So I think maybe he has some real reason to oppose the retroactive nature of the bill. But I can't see what it is from this article.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Clearly someone from the private prison industry is paying him off. Follow the money, check his donors and I'm sure you'll find a significant amount from the prison industry.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Beto should have demanded a recount.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Beto, like many people of color, wuz robbed by his straight white male opponent.

  • KevinP||

    LOL. Not to mention that Beto, a man of modest means and family was defeated by millionaire Ted Cruz!

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch.....8f9a32387f

  • John||

    What is the world coming to if the son in laws of billionaires can't get a fair shake in this country?

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Nice, I can feel that Aryan edge coming through.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    It was even close, 2.5% difference, not even close to the amount needed to declare a recount.

  • JFree||

    Who know who else wanted to reform sentences?

  • juris imprudent||

    Everyone who ever longed for an edit button.

  • Dillinger||

    still > Robbie

  • Jerryskids||

    Cruz has never offered a plausible explanation for this turnaround.

    Two words - "flip" and "flop". Where are my people? I am their leader and must chase after them if I want to get in front of them.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    South Park needs to remake its "The Biggest Douche in the Universe" episode.

    Ted Cruz has it all over John Edward as far as douchiness goes.

  • Alan@.4||

    The War On Drugs was certainly one of the worst legislative,bureaucratic, administrative screw-ups in the history of this country. Nothing about it ever made the least sense, and yet it is still pursued. One wonders as to why?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Did you ever reflect that it might just be a Bad Bill?

  • commentguy||

    Ted Cruz is known for being dislikable, not for ideological consistency. The guy is such a pussy that after Trump insulted his wife and make ludicrous claims abut his father, Cruz bent over and endorsed Trump.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Cruz has never offered a plausible explanation for this turnaround."

    Notice how FakeNews works. Always with the weasel words.

    Cruz offered no "plausible" explanation. Meaning that Cruz did offer an explanation, but Boehm will pretend it never happened because he doesn't like Cruz's position.

    Boehm quotes Cruz in an earlier article:
    I cannot go along with legislation that could result in more violent criminals being released to the streets and potentially more lives being lost….

    Sounds plausible to me.

    Cruz went beyond an explanation to offering a very short amendment to the bills. Not just an explanation. Legislation.

    An actual journalist would have analyzed how his amendments would change the bill.

    ALB15D51 S.L.C.
    AMENDMENT NO.llll Calendar No.lll
    Purpose: To strike a retroactive applicability provision and
    other provisions that reduce enhanced mandatory minimum
    sentences for certain firearm offenses and for
    armed career criminals.
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—114th Cong., 1st Sess.
    S. 2123
    To reform sentencing laws and correctional institutions, and
    for other purposes.

    AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mr. CRUZ (for
    himself, Mr. PERDUE, and Mr. SESSIONS)
    Viz:
    1 Strike section 101(c) and insert the following:
    2 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This section, and the amendments
    made by this section, shall apply only to a conviction
    entered on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
    5 Strike section 104.
    6 Strike section 105(a)(2).
    7 Strike section 105(b).

  • buybuydandavis||

    https://goo.gl/ykMMLg

    Senate Committee on the Judiciary
    Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226
    October 22, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.‎
    I. Bills
    S. 2123, Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (Grassley, Durbin, Cornyn, Whitehouse, Lee, Schumer, Graham, Leahy, Tillis, Coons)

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Prison Industrial complex got ol' Ted by the short hairs.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online