Wisconsin housing crisis fueled by the Thurmond Amendment. Repeal this relic.
When former President Biden commuted the sentences of nearly 2,500 nonviolent drug offenders in January before leaving office, he reignited attention to the unjust sentencing disparities born from the "War on Drugs" policies that continue to harm thousands of Wisconsinites decades later.
Chief among these relics is the Thurmond Amendment, a draconian policy that enforces a lifetime of punishment by denying Fair Housing protections to individuals convicted of drug distribution, no matter how much time has passed or how much they've rebuilt their lives.
Imagine making a mistake as a young adult and getting mixed up with drugs. After serving your sentence, maturing, and working hard to rebuild your life, you're ready to start fresh. Only to discover years later that a single conviction legally locks you out of housing opportunities indefinitely. Some landlords won't return your calls. Others deny your application outright, regardless of your income, credit score, or rental history.
Opinion: Providing services to released inmates cuts recidivism and boosts life prospects
This is the reality for over 50,000 Wisconsinites living under the shadow of the Thurmond Amendment. These individuals and their families often face a lifetime sentence for low-level offenses involving small quantities of drugs.
Take the case of Stacey Smiter, a Wisconsin resident convicted of marijuana distribution. For years, Stacey faced rejection in the housing market or was forced to pay exorbitant security deposits solely because of his record. His punishment didn't end with his sentence — it extended into every corner of his life as he struggled to secure stable housing for his family.
Ironically, had Stacey been convicted of a violent crime, he would not face this legal barrier.
In 2016, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued guidance requiring landlords to consider criminal records in the context of other factors, such as rental, credit, and employment history. However, the Thurmond Amendment excludes drug distribution convictions from these protections, creating a loophole that leaves individuals like Stacey permanently locked out of fair housing opportunities.
The impact of the Thurmond Amendment in Wisconsin is staggering. Since its enactment in 1988, over 50,000 people in the state have been convicted of drug distribution offenses, many involving minor amounts of drugs. Eleven percent of all drug convictions in Wisconsin are for marijuana, and 81% of cocaine convictions involve small amounts tied to personal use. Many of these individuals, had they been charged in today's political environment, would have faced simple possession charges and retained their Fair Housing protections.
The law's effects are also deeply inequitable. Black Wisconsinites are 12 times more likely than white residents to receive a drug distribution conviction. For amounts as small as three grams or less, that disparity rises to 15 times. By denying stable housing, the Thurmond Amendment perpetuates cycles of poverty, recidivism, and family instability — all while offering no measurable benefit to public safety.
Housing is the foundation of stability and opportunity. In today's historically tight housing market, denying families protections based on decades-old convictions—while ignoring standard measures of risk like credit score or rental history — isn't just bad policy. It's an unjustified barrier to economic mobility that harms individuals, families, and communities alike.
Thankfully, there's reason for optimism.
Reforming this issue has strong support from industry leaders such as the Rental Apartment Association of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Realtors. Both groups have endorsed repealing the Thurmond Amendment, recognizing that the law harms individuals who have paid their debt to society without benefiting the housing market. As the Rental Apartment Association noted:
"Good renters deserve options in the rental market that align with their family's needs and wants. If a tenant qualifies for an apartment based on income, rental, and credit history, they should not be denied housing simply because of a conviction from decades ago."
Repealing the Thurmond Amendment would also align with bipartisan efforts like the First Step Act, signed by President Donald Trump in 2018, and the Fair Chance Act, co-sponsored by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson.
Opinion: Doctors battle misinformation. RFK Jr. is wrong — and measles may only be start.
Policies that show reforming punitive laws can promote second chances without compromising community safety.
Now is the time for Wisconsin legislators on Capitol Hill to act. By removing this unnecessary and discriminatory barrier, we can ensure that people like Stacey Smiter are judged not by their past mistakes but by their current record of responsibility. Stable housing is not just essential for individuals—it strengthens families, supports economic growth, and builds stronger communities for all Wisconsinites.
Shannon Ross is the CEO of The Community and Co-founder of Paradigm Shyft. Yusuf Dahl is the CEO of the Century Promise, the past president of the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin and is currently leading the national effort to repeal the Thurmond Amendment
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Decades old convictions prevent many from securing housing | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
15 minutes ago
- CNBC
‘Sovereign AI' is poised to boom under Trump. Wall Street is sizing up a multibillion-dollar market
Global artificial intelligence deals under the Trump administration this year have thrust "sovereign AI" into the limelight, bringing to life a new engine to power the AI investment cycle. While the first major wave of AI was tied to innovation spurred by private sector tech companies, Wall Street is now looking for opportunities that are tied to the growth from the public sector. These so-called sovereign AI deals involve a nation's capabilities to produce and control its own AI infrastructure, data, regulations and networks. The term isn't new, but analysts and investors are taking notice of the trend given U.S. President Donald Trump 's enthusiasm to strike AI deals between domestic tech giants and select foreign allies. In May, the president scrapped Biden-era U.S. chip export restrictions , known as the "AI diffusion rule." That move helped pave the way for Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to supply chips to Saudi company Humain . "Sovereign AI has risen from the ashes of the Biden AI Diffusion rule to now squarely fit with the Trump Administration's goals to reshape allies in the Middle East around American technology," Ben Reitzes, head of technology research at Melius Research, said in a May note to clients. "Nvidia (along with even AMD and Cisco) now have a spring in their step. … This trend is just starting." Some nations have also released long-term frameworks for their AI public and commercial infrastructure strategies. Canada last December launched the Canadian Sovereign AI Compute Strategy, while India kicked off its IndiaAI Mission in March 2024 . Further, last year, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators rolled out a road map for artificial intelligence policy, seeking a $32 billion annual investment in AI research and development by 2026. Underpinning this trend is the belief that AI will be a key tool in influencing global power dynamics. "With c. $16tn annual global economic value on the line, AI is becoming key in setting the new world order," Bank of America analyst Haim Israel said in a May note. "It is not just the race for technological development but also for resources, supply chains, regulation and standards that are on the line," the analyst added. "Whoever controls AI could have an advantage, possibly reshaping the geopolitical balance of power." Bank of America estimates the global sovereign AI market could be worth $50 billion annually and lead to an "AI infrastructure opportunity" ranging from $450 billion to $500 billion, according to another May note to clients. The firm estimates that at least $2.5 trillion in funding toward AI investments and partnerships have been announced so far this year. This includes projects from Big Tech, recent pledges from the Middle East and North Africa region, the Stargate project — which is a joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle and Softbank — and efforts in the European Union . "These should increase the rollout of AI and improve the economics," Bank of America's Israel said. A new driver for leading AI stocks To capture this momentum, major tech companies are building out product portfolios tied to sovereign AI, framing the technology as a catalyst for national economic and industry growth, national security enforcement, and scientific discovery. For starters, Cisco Systems is "the sovereign AI player no one talks about," Reitzes said in a June 2 note to clients. In May, the networking giant announced it would partner with Saudi Arabia's Humain to build AI infrastructure. Reitzes thinks investors are overlooking the value of Cisco's recent deals in the Middle East , as he said greater sovereign demand could lead the company to see a pickup in AI product orders and spur a breakout in shares. He reiterated his buy rating and $78 price target on the stock, which suggests nearly 20% upside from Thursday's close. Cisco shares have risen 8% this year. "Middle Eastern sovereign entities are unproven, and the investment figures seem cartoonish — but Cisco may have achieved the equivalent of adding a hyperscaler to its customer list," Reitzes wrote. "The company boasts an excellent longstanding relationship with the CEO of Saudi's HUMAIN and other leaders of UAE and Qatar entities — who are not short on cash." Cisco has seen rapid growth in its switching business, which has attracted demand from cloud data center customers. In the fiscal third quarter , Cisco's AI infrastructure orders exceeded expectations for the second quarter in a row, Reitzes noted. The company is "getting on the right side of AI, which can help expand its multiple," Reitzes said. "With HUMAIN, UAE and Qatar, these AI orders could multiply — and start to catch investors' attention and contribute to an acceleration in switching later in FY26 and FY27." Analysts have also pointed to chipmakers Nvidia and AMD as the obvious leaders of sovereign AI, given their multiyear AI infrastructure partnerships with Humain. AMD signed a deal with Humain: A $10 billion collaboration to deploy 500 megawatts of AI compute capacity over the next five years. The agreement involves AMD's deployment of its Instinct GPUs, EPYC processors and ROCm open software ecosystem. Nvidia said it is deploying 18,000 of its most advanced GB300 Grace Blackwell chips to Humain. On news of the Humain deal, Bank of America's Vivek Arya reiterated his buy ratings on Nvidia and AMD and lifted his price targets on each stock by $10 to $160 and $130, respectively, citing "upside to long-term AI opportunity." Arya called the Humain partnership "an important win" for AMD. "Conceptually this would be the first time for AMD on a 'similar' footing as NVDA in terms of engagement in large projects," the analyst said in a note. "However, NVDA appears to be getting direct awards, while AMD appears to be engaged in a [joint venture]-like approach (with Cisco) with some unspecified level of investments." The trickle-down impact of sovereign AI investments Analysts and investors think that growth in sovereign AI will have knock-on positive effects on other parts of the AI industry — such as foundry, optical and memory technology companies. In addition to Nvidia and AMD, T. Rowe Price portfolio manager Tony Wang called out Arista Networks and Broadcom as strong plays for exposure to AI leaders as well as to companies building projects abroad. "I think Nvidia would be the most standard way that the world will build on. Broadcom is more custom," he said. Wang manages T. Rowe Price's Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX) , and its holdings include Nvidia, Broadcom, AMD and Arista Networks, as of March 31. Bank of America's Arya named Marvell Technology another beneficiary of the trend and is bullish on the semiconductor company's earnings growth over the next several years. Though Wall Street is growing keen on this trend now, tech CEOs have been calling for the push of government-led AI investments since the early innings of the artificial intelligence boom. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and IBM CEO Arvind Krishna have called for countries to continue building out their sovereign AI capabilities. In 2023, Krishna reportedly advocated for governments to set up large language models, national AI computing centers and common data sets for specific use cases. Huang said on Nvidia's May 28 earnings call that "sovereign AI is a new growth engine for Nvidia." During a fireside chat in 2023, he also highlighted "a recognition that every region and every country needs to build their sovereign AI." The call for greater AI investment goes back even further. In 2021, a group of experts chaired by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt warned about increasing competition between the U.S. and China "in the AI era" and suggested a government AI investment plan that wound up very similar to the one U.S. lawmakers proposed in 2024.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's dealmaking meets limits on Israel, Iran and Russia-Ukraine
The limits of President Trump's ability to control foreign events have been tested by an ally's significant attack on an adversary, leaving him on the outside looking in for the second time in a month. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky in June opted not to inform Trump before launching a drone attack that destroyed 40 planes well within Russian territory, an operation that had been planned for more than a year. It was a shocking attack in some ways, given the vulnerabilities it highlighted for Moscow. Trump responded with a call to Russia President Vladimir Putin, and later acknowledged the surprise Ukraine hit would make it more difficult to reach a peace deal, a top priority in the first six months of his administration. Overnight Thursday, an even closer U.S. ally in Israel launched the biggest attack on Iran in more than 40 years, openly targeting nuclear sites, military bases and residential neighborhoods in Tehran. The U.S. was not blindsided by Israel's actions, but while the Trump administration was aware of the operation, it also distanced itself, making clear the military action was led solely by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a Thursday statement released by the White House. Trump insisted on the campaign trail that he would end ongoing wars in his first 24 hours as president, but that's proved much harder to accomplish in practice. Nearly six months into his second stint at the White House, neither crisis has an end in sight. While that isn't a terribly big surprise, it shows the limits of the president's ability to make deals or impose his will to solve intractable conflicts. It's also given an opening to Democratic critics. 'We have a very weak strongman for president,' Wendy Sherman, the former deputy secretary of State under former President Biden, said Friday in a CNN interview. She noted that since taking office, Trump has not resolved conflicts in Ukraine, Iran and Gaza and that there were still Israeli hostages being held in the Gaza Strip — all issues Biden also did not resolve before leaving office. Sherman also said Friday that 'Israel is in charge this morning, not Donald Trump.' Trump seemed to be warning Israel off an attack in the hours before missiles were fired. He said his administration was getting close to a nuclear deal with Iran and that any 'imminent' attacks stood to 'blow' any chance of an agreement. The president was adamant he supported a 'more friendly path' between the adversaries. 'Look, I want to have an agreement with Iran. We're fairly close to an agreement. We are fairly close to a pretty good agreement. It's got to be better than pretty good, though,' he told reporters in the East Room. 'As I think there is an agreement, I don't want them [Israel] going in because I think I would blow it — might help it, actually, but it also could blow it. But we've had very good discussions with Iran.' Israel launched its attack about eight hours later. By Friday morning, Iran had pulled out a sixth round of talks it had planned with the U.S. in Oman. By then, Trump also was changing his tune. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social, pitting the blame on the Iranians who last week had openly criticized negotiations with the U.S. as 'incoherent and disjointed.' Presidents before Trump have been felled by the Middle East, and Trump has had some successes with Ukraine, most notably the signing of a mineral rights deal with Kyiv. But the limits of dealmaking have also shown up on other issues. The administration says it is conducting trade deal talks with more than 90 countries, but so far only a deal with the United Kingdom has come to fruition. Trump touted a deal with China earlier this week, but there is no indication he and Chinese President Xi Jinping have made that official. Trump allies lauded the president's approach to Iran, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) saying Tehran should make a deal with Trump to give up its nuclear program. 'I hope and pray the ayatollah and his henchmen who are still alive will heed President Trump's counsel,' Graham wrote on the social platform X. 'If not, America – the greatest power for good on Earth – should be all-in to help Israel finish the job.' And whatever limits Trump has encountered on dealmaking, he's not done trying. Even Iran, he said in comments after Israel's deadly assault Friday, could get a 'second chance.' Trump told CNN's Dana Bash that everyone he had been negotiating with had been killed. He later told NBC, when asked why the Iranians would want to negotiate a deal now, that some officials were calling him. 'They're calling me to speak,' Trump said. When asked who was calling, Trump said, 'The same people we worked with the last time. … Many of them are dead.' Trump has long cast himself as anti-war, and has argued the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Hamas attack on Israel would not have happened on his watch. Much of the MAGA base has an isolationist bent, in part a backlash to the forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq launched by former President George W. Bush, the only other Republican to serve in the White House this century. On Friday, some of Trump's remarks were pleas for peace. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. An escalation of violence in the Middle East, even if the latest attack on Iran did not deploy the U.S.'s military might, stands to drag the U.S. into further conflict, if history is any indication. 'Trump has said he wants a deal and publicly warned Israel not to strike. Whether that was a strategic ruse or genuine restraint is now irrelevant. The Rubicon has been crossed,' Sina Toossi, a nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in an analysis. 'Rather than crippling Iran's military and nuclear capabilities, Israel's escalation risks fueling nationalist sentiment, solidifying internal cohesion, and triggering a dangerous cycle of retaliation, all while increasing the likelihood of American entanglement,' Toossi continued. That would not play well with the likes of MAGA loyalists such as Charlie Kirk, who in a lengthy post on X firmly arguing against any further escalation, citing Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Dragging American into this war might be irrational and suicidal, but wars have a habit of making their participants irrational and suicidal (just look at the Ukraine war),' Kirk wrote. 'Our focus must not be on seeking regime change or any further escalation of America's involvement. The last thing America needs right now is a new war. Our number one desire must be peace, as quickly as possible,' he continued. Rema Rahman is the White House editor at The Hill.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Judge rules Trump's firings at federal product safety agency illegal
A federal judge on Friday ruled that President Trump's firings of three Biden-nominated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) members were illegal, enabling them to return to their posts. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Maryland, ordered the administration restore the commissioners' pay as well as their access to office spaces, computers and email accounts. The three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — sued the administration after Trump fired them last month. Maddox is the latest district judge to block Trump's efforts to fire Democratic appointees at independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy despite federal law providing them with for-cause removal protections. The president did not purport to have cause in firing the CPSC members or at the other agencies. His administration seeks to invalidate the protections as unconstitutional by intruding on the president's authority to oversee the executive branch. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has signaled a willingness to agree with that view, but it has not yet formally overruled the court's 90-year-old precedent that has paved the way for Congress to provide the removal protections. In its latest signal, the nation's highest court last month lifted lower injunctions blocking Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), saying the agency leaders could be terminated until any appeals are resolved. Maddox acknowledged that decision on Friday but distinguished it from his case. He stressed the Supreme Court rooted its decision in how the NLRB and MSPB leaders faced a whiplash of removals and reinstatements throughout the lower court proceedings, insisting the decision did not eviscerate the constitutionality of removal protections. 'Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,' the judge wrote. 'The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.' The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' Nick Sansone, the commissioners' lead counsel who works for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement. 'Congress structured the CPSC as an independent agency so that the safety of American consumers wouldn't be subject to political whims and industry pressure,' Sansone continued. 'The court's ruling upholds that sound legislative choice.' He added, 'We are thrilled that our clients can get back to work keeping us safe from hazardous products.'
