Alabama Senate passes ‘Second Chance' bill after second vote
After almost dying on the Senate floor, the Alabama Senate Tuesday passed a bill to allow some people serving life in prison a chance to have their sentences reviewed.
A majority of Senate Republicans initially sank the bill on a 16-16 vote, but after nearly two hours of uncertainty, the bill returned for a second vote and passed 17-8. Sen. David Sessions, R-Grand Bay, who voted against it, made a motion to reconsider the legislation, which is also known as 'The Second Chance Act.'
'When the vote was tied at 16-16, there was a motion to reconsider an hour or two later, and during that time, we had an opportunity to talk to different members and address concerns or questions that they may have had, what the bill actually did, and some misconceptions that were put out there,' said Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, the bill's sponsor, after the Senate adjourned.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SB 156 would give some people sentenced to life in prison under the state's Habitual Offender Law before May 26, 2000, to have their sentences reviewed. Those convicted of homicides, sexually-based or violent offenses would not be eligible.
Alabama in 1977 passed the Habitual Felony Offender Act, which enhanced penalties for those convicted of felonies who had previously served time for felony convictions. The legislation played a significant role in the state's current prison overcrowding crisis. The Legislature revised the law in 2000 to offer judges more discretion in sentencing people with prior felony convictions.
Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, has sponsored a similar bill since the 2021 legislative session. His legislation reached the House floor last year for the first time, but House Republicans killed the bill on a procedural vote. It passed the House the year before, but the Senate never considered it.
Barfoot said there were misconceptions from members on what the bill would achieve, saying that some members thought a much larger population would have their sentences reviewed. He said that an estimated 150-200 inmates could benefit from having their sentences reduced.
Sen. Chris Elliot, R-Josephine, asked what would happen if someone who was convicted under Habitual Offender Law 'habitually offends again,' and asked, 'Is there an automatic go back to jail?'
Barfoot said there was that if a judge reduced a sentence and the individual was granted probation, 'the laws of the state of Alabama would apply.'
Gov. Kay Ivey in her State of the State speech endorsed the legislation as part of a legislative package cracking down on violent crime. After the Senate's passage, Ivey praised its passage on X, formerly known as Twitter.
'It restores a chance at parole eligibility for a narrow category of inmates currently ineligible simply because of the date they were sentenced,' Ivey posted.
The bill now moves to the House for consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Warren County Republicans vie for Ohio Senate seat
The race to represent a Warren County seat in the Ohio Senate is heating up, as two Republican candidates have already announced their campaigns for a May 2026 primary. Sen. Steve Wilson currently represents District 7 but term limits prevent him from running again. The district includes Warren County and northern parts of Hamilton County. It has a 60% Republican lean and a population of about 366,000, according to analysis by Dave's Redistricting, which uses recent election results data to predict partisan split of electoral districts. It's not clear who else, Republican or Democrat, may run for the seat as it's too early to see who has pulled petitions for 2026 local elections. Who is Zac Haines? Symmes Township resident Zac Haines has announced his campaign to represent the 7th District. Haines is a Miami University trustee and CEO of DPA Buying Group, a marketing agency in Blue Ash. He was nominated by President Trump to be a trustee for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation. He's been endorsed for the seat by U.S. Rep. Warren Davidson, a Republican from Troy, along with Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague, according a campaign news release. 'My goal is to make Ohio the best and most competitive state in the country,' Haines said in the release. Who is Scott Lipps? Scott Lipps, who previously represented Warren County in the Ohio House, has also pulled petitions to run for the Senate seat. Lipps last won reelection for the eastern Warren County House seat in 2022 with 75% of the vote. Term limits prevented him from running for the Ohio House again. Lipps has also served as Franklin mayor and city council member. He owns Sleep Tite Mattress Factory and Showroom in Franklin. Lipps said in a news release that he spent his time at the statehouse advocating for Second Amendment rights and for the rights of the elderly and those with disabilities. "It was an honor to represent Warren County and southwestern Ohio at the Statehouse. I am proud of my conservative record," Lipps said in the release. Regional politics reporter Erin Glynn can be reached at eglynn@ @ee_glynn on X or @eringlynn on Bluesky. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Warren County primary: meet the Republican candidates Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California redistricting fight gets heated as lawmakers debate new congressional maps
The Brief A hearing was held Tuesday to discuss plans to redraw California's congressional districts. The committee hearing turned chaotic, with shouting and interruptions, as Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa and residents criticized the process, costs, and lack of public input. The California Legislature is expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday. SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A California legislative hearing turned into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats over a partisan plan to rewrite U.S. House maps to win Democrats more seats. What we know A committee voted along party lines to advance a new congressional map in response to a Republican redistricting effort in Texas that President Donald Trump wants. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead. Assemblymember David Tangipa, one of two Republicans on the committee that was considering the proposal Tuesday, spent 30 minutes asking questions of his colleagues before being told to make time for other members, prompting some boos from audience members. When the committee began voting, he shouted for more time. At times during the hearing, lawmakers interrupted one another until the chair, a Democrat, called for order. "This is not the way we conduct our hearing," Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, who chairs the committee, said as she called for order several times after hours of discussion. Tangipa argued that California should spend its resources on other issues such as health care. Lawmakers are expected to schedule a Nov. 4 special election to put the new maps before voters, and they haven't revealed a cost estimate for the unexpected election. California Republicans estimated a special election could cost more than $230 million. "I'm asking how much this costs because the state is in a massive deficit and it's so personal to me," Tangipa said after the vote. He said his stepsister died a few weeks ago after a Medicaid provider refused to sign off on services she needed. California begins voting on proposed congressional map Tuesday's hearings were the first chance for California residents to tell lawmakers how they feel about the new congressional boundaries. A hearing in the Senate was far calmer, and the proposal passed easily. California Democrats said they are pushing back against Trump and his desire to reshape U.S. House maps to his advantage in an expanding fight over control of Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The California Legislature is expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get the required voter approval. In Texas, state Rep. Nicole Collier stayed at the Capitol overnight and into Tuesday to protest a Republican requirement that she and some of her Democratic colleagues have around-the-clock law enforcement surveillance after they ended a two-week walkout that delayed a vote on the Trump-backed map. RELATED:Redistricting California: Newly proposed congressional maps released On Tuesday, eight other Texas Democrats said they'll join Collier in spending the night on the House floor. State Department of Public Safety officers are shadowing the lawmakers to ensure they return to the Capitol and do not leave Texas again. To leave the House floor Monday, the Democrats had to sign what they called "permission slips" agreeing to the surveillance. Texas' Republican-controlled House scheduled a vote for Wednesday on the new map. California Republicans mount an opposition campaign Dozens of residents from up and down the state, leaders of local Republican groups and the conservative California Family Council showed up to a hearing Tuesday to voice opposition to Democrats' plan. Some said the process has been shrouded in secrecy because the map was drawn without meaningful public input. Others said they would rather have lawmakers focus on addressing issues instead of trying to bypass a bipartisan redistricting process. "There's different needs and different requirements for everybody," Jim Shoemaker, a Republican running for Congress in a district south of Sacramento, said in an interview. "But if you have somebody that just has a little portion of an area, they're not going to represent the people the way they should because they're looking at the wrong thing." Labor union members and several key Democratic political allies said the partisan plan is needed to protect democracy and to fight back the president's aggressive agenda. Public remarks may have little sway, though, as Democratic leaders are determined to rapidly advance the proposal. Some Republican lawmakers filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court arguing Democrats are violating the state constitution. They assert that lawmakers can't vote this week because the constitution requires new legislation to have a 30-day wait for public review. Democrats hold 43 out of California's 52 U.S. House seats and want to win five more. The proposal would try to expand that advantage by targeting battleground districts in Northern California, San Diego and Orange counties, and the Central Valley. Some Democratic incumbents also get more left-leaning voters in their districts. Texas Democrats have police escorts In Texas, Republican legislative leaders assigned state troopers to watch their Democratic colleagues and ensure they don't flee the state again, as they did recently to block a vote on new maps. Suburban Dallas Rep. Mihaela Plesa said one followed her on her Monday evening drive back to her apartment in Austin after spending much of the day on a couch in her office. She said he went with her for a staff lunch and even down the hallway with her for restroom breaks. "This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really performative theater," Plesa said in a telephone interview. A message seeking comment was sent Tuesday to the Department of Public Safety. A national brawl unfolding Redistricting typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade after the census. But Trump is looking to use mid-decade redistricting to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of the midterms during his first presidency. After gaining House control in 2018, Democrats used their majority to stymie his agenda and twice impeach him. Nationally, the partisan makeup of existing district lines puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Of the 435 total House seats, several dozen districts are competitive, so even slight changes in a few states could affect which party wins control. ___ Vertuno reported from Austin, Texas. Associated Press writer Sophie Austin in Sacramento and John Hanna from Topeka, Kansas contributed to this report. The Source Information for this story came from the Associated Press.
CNN
42 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
