I am in opposition to the bill focusing on potential conflicts with existing laws and legal precedents: 1. Conflict with Federal Law - Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: The bill contradicts the current federal framework established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which set an 18:1 ratio for sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, reflecting legislative intent to address but not completely eliminate the disparity. 2. Constitutional Concerns - Equal Protection Clause: Changing sentencing guidelines without comprehensive review could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) showed the Supreme Court's reluctance to overturn laws based solely on statistical disparities without clear evidence of discriminatory intent. 3. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines incorporate the 18:1 ratio. A change would require an overhaul of the guidelines, potentially leading to judicial confusion and inconsistency, conflicting with the advisory nature of guidelines post-United States v. Booker (2005). 4. State Law Variations: Many states have their own drug laws which might not align with a federal push towards complete parity. Sudden federal alignment could disrupt state legal frameworks. 5. Legal Precedent - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015): This case reaffirms the principle of stare decisis. Critics might argue that overturning the established sentencing disparity should not be done lightly. 6. Public Policy and Resource Allocation: The current system provides a structured approach to sentencing. Changing this might necessitate significant retraining and budget reallocations. 7. Concerns Over Unintended Consequences: Without nuanced policy, the bill might lead to harsh outcomes in some scenarios, akin to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). 8. Procedural Due Process - Legal Certainty: A sudden change might violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by creating uncertainty for those charged under the old laws. Thanks Lisa Fraser

I am in opposition to the bill focusing on potential conflicts with existing laws and legal precedents: 1. Conflict with Federal Law - Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: The bill contradicts the current federal framework established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which set an 18:1 ratio for sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, reflecting legislative intent to address but not completely eliminate the disparity. 2. Constitutional Concerns - Equal Protection Clause: Changing sentencing guidelines without comprehensive review could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) showed the Supreme Court's reluctance to overturn laws based solely on statistical disparities without clear evidence of discriminatory intent. 3. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines incorporate the 18:1 ratio. A change would require an overhaul of the guidelines, potentially leading to judicial confusion and inconsistency, conflicting with the advisory nature of guidelines post-United States v. Booker (2005). 4. State Law Variations: Many states have their own drug laws which might not align with a federal push towards complete parity. Sudden federal alignment could disrupt state legal frameworks. 5. Legal Precedent - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015): This case reaffirms the principle of stare decisis. Critics might argue that overturning the established sentencing disparity should not be done lightly. 6. Public Policy and Resource Allocation: The current system provides a structured approach to sentencing. Changing this might necessitate significant retraining and budget reallocations. 7. Concerns Over Unintended Consequences: Without nuanced policy, the bill might lead to harsh outcomes in some scenarios, akin to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). 8. Procedural Due Process - Legal Certainty: A sudden change might violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by creating uncertainty for those charged under the old laws. Thanks Lisa Fraser