SUMMARY: Curtis Flowers has been tried six times for the murder of four people killed in a Mississippi furniture store in 1996. The case is the subject of the second season American Public Media’s “In the Dark” podcast. Now the Supreme Court is considering whether the district attorney prosecuting Flowers illegally made juror selections based on race. William Brangham talks to APM’s Madeleine Baran.
SUMMARY: There are more than 150 ballot initiatives this year at the state level, capable of creating huge change for voters. Nine states are voting on the legalization of recreational or medical marijuana. Other measures concern gun control, the minimum wage, and the death penalty. John Yang learns more from John Myers of the Los Angeles Times and Josh Altic of Ballotpedia for more.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): Let's focus now on a different election story, ballot initiatives and measures at the state and local level. It's a big year for it. There are more than 150 at the state level this year.
John Yang has the story.
JOHN YANG (NewsHour): Next Tuesday, legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational use is on the ballot in nine states. And voters across the country will also decide other contentious issues, including gun control, health care and prescription drug costs, the death penalty, and the minimum wage.
We take a look at some of these issues with two people who are following them very closely.
John Myers is the Sacramento bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times, and Josh Altic tracks ballot issues for Ballotpedia, a nonpartisan online political encyclopedia.
Josh, John, thank you both for joining us.
John, let me start with you.
California, as usual, has a long list of ballot initiatives that voters have to decide next Tuesday. And let's start with marijuana. California voters approved marijuana for medicinal use in 1996, and rejected it for recreational use in 2010. Why is it back? And what's different this time?
JOHN MYERS, Los Angeles Times: Yes, I mean, it's a good question. Why is it back?
We're the largest state in the country. And I think there has been the sense that there is a sea change in the way Californians view this, I think, in some ways mirrored in other parts of the country as well, and certainly efforts in Colorado and Washington state have gotten a lot of attention here in California.
This measure, I will tell you, is drafted much differently than the measure that failed in 2010. It's more detailed. It has more details about taxes that are imposed at the state and local level on marijuana. And it's backed by a couple of very big people.
The Lieutenant Governor of the State, Gavin Newsom; and Sean Parker, the impresario behind Napster and Facebook in Silicon Valley, a wealthy financier, have both gotten behind it. It has a lot of institutional support. And the polling shows that it is doing pretty well.
How you get to legalization, I think California is watching these other state, but at this point, it looks voters are probably going to say yes.
JOHN YANG: And, Josh, what other states is this on the ballot in? And this is — we see oftentimes ballot initiates leading the way for federal law, federal policy. It's still illegal at the federal level. Could this be the tipping point this year?
JOSH ALTIC, Ballotpedia: There has been a lot of discussion about whether this is the year that will really push towards removal of federal prohibition.
You have it — so, 80 million people live in states this year where marijuana laws could be basically made more accessible to every person. So, you have recreational marijuana in Nevada, Arizona. Those are the big ones. Maine, Massachusetts, and, of course, California.
And while California stands kind of above the rest as a really significant landmark for the tipping point idea, the fact that you have five other states, more than we have ever seen on the ballot at the same time, considering the issue is an indication that this could be a really key year for the policy.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court ended a dramatic session with high-profile rulings on three issues: how the EPA regulates air pollution, how to map voting lines and the death penalty by lethal injection. Judy Woodruff learns more from Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The U.S. Supreme Court closed out a dramatic session today with three more high-profile decisions. The latest rulings touched on how the Environmental Protection Agency regulates our air, how to map voting lines and how states carry out the death penalty.
Justices also put on hold a Texas law that was set to close a number of clinics that perform abortions in the state this week.
And joining me to discuss it all is our hardworking court expert, Marcia Coyle, with “The National Law Journal.”
No shortage. They went out — they’re going out with a bang. Let’s put it that way.
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: They absolutely are, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, let’s start with this Texas decision. This was an emergency appeal that the court granted this afternoon to block the state of Texas from immediately imposing these stricter regulations on abortion clinics. What was happening here?
MARCIA COYLE: Right.
A lower federal court had ruled against the Whole Women’s Health clinic and other abortion clinics in Texas in their challenge to the Texas law, which requires the clinic to meet all the standards of ambulatory surgical facilities, which the clinics claim they are not, and also that their physicians have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic.
This is a temporary delay to allow the clinics to file what we call a petition for cert, their appeal of that lower court decision. Four justices would have allowed the lower court’s decision to go into effect immediately, the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
July 1 was the deadline. That’s when the lower court decision was to take effect. So, it’s now on hold. The appeals by the clinics have not yet been filed in the Supreme Court.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency in a case on how federal regulators set limits on mercury emitted from power plants, finding that the EPA failed to take economic costs into account. Jeffrey Brown examines the implications with Dr. Lynn Goldman of the George Washington University and Jeffrey Holmstead of Environmental Strategies Group.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including a death sentence for Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, an Amtrak funding and safety debate after the deadly derailment, the Senate fight over the possible Asia trade deal and questions for Jeb Bush on shifting support for the Iraq war.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): So, I want to ask you first, though, both about the Boston verdict, sentencing verdict.
Mark, you’re from Boston. This is the death sentence, unanimous death sentence.
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: It is, Judy.
And the one just outstanding image I have is that of Bill and Denise Richard, the parents of little Martin, the little angel 8-year-old who was blown up in front of their eyes while their daughter, Jane, lost her leg, and their request to give life without parole. Otherwise, they said, the death sentence, we will relive this. Every appeal that is made, we will relive the worst day of our life.
It is an aspect that — and a perspective, I think, that appealed to me, given my feelings on the death penalty. But as pointed out by the prosecution, he put — he put the bomb four feet away from a row of children. It was a horrific, horrific, inhuman act. So, you know, my heart goes out to the Richard family and to everybody else who was touched and remains pained.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But the jury went in the other direction.
DAVID BROOKS, York Times columnist: Yes. And some of the other families wanted this outcome. I think there was division among them.
I’m — personally, I am skeptical of the death penalty in cases where we don’t know, we’re not certain. There have been so many wrongful convictions, and so I’m not a fan of the death penalty. Nonetheless, I thought what Loretta Lynch, the new attorney general, said today was that this was truly the most horrendous crime imaginable, and for the most horrendous crime, the ultimate penalty is fitting.
I have some sympathy. And this is not a case where we really have too much doubt about who did it. We know this guy did it. It killed those children, and then killed the cop a couple of days later. And so if there’s ever going to be a death penalty, I guess I think this is the case. Whether he will actually ever get executed, I’m a little dubious. I don’t [think] he ever will. A lot of the federal cases, they rarely actually execute the people, because the appeals take so long. But I guess it’s fitting in this case.
SUMMARY: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death for the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings that killed three. The federal jury chose to sentence the 21-year-old to death by lethal injection over life in prison without possibility of release. Judy Woodruff talks to Emily Rooney of WGBH to learn more about the reactions from victims and their families.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The Boston Marathon bomber was sentenced to death today; 21-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted by a federal jury last month of the April 2013 bombings that killed three bystanders near the finish line of the annual race.
Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, later killed a policemen during a manhunt. The elder Tsarnaev died in a gun battle with police. The jury chose death over the only other option, life in prison without possibility of release.
After the penalty was announced, the U.S. attorney who led the prosecution and a bombing victim spoke.
CARMEN ORTIZ, U.S. Attorney, District of Massachusetts: Today, the jury has spoken, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will pay with his life for his crimes. Make no mistake. The defendant claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims. This wasn’t a religious crime and it certainly doesn’t reflect true Muslim beliefs. It was a political crime designed to intimidate and to coerce the United States.
KAREN BRASSARD, Boston Bombing Survivor: Today feels different only because it’s — it is more complete, I guess, is how I’m going to say it. I know that there is still a long road ahead. There’s going to be many, many, many more dates ahead, but right now it feels like we can take a breath.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The U.S. Supreme Court today declared a Florida rule used to determine if a person is mentally fit for execution to be unconstitutional.
The court has previously ruled that states cannot execute individuals deemed to have an intellectual disability. Florida had been using an I.Q. score of 70 as its determining factor. But the justices, in a 5-to-4 decision, said that was too rigid.
For more on the decision, we turn, as always, to Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal.”
Marcia.
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: Hi, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Great to have you back.
MARCIA COYLE: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Marcia, give us — just remind us of the background of this case. What was it about?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, Freddie Lee Hall had been convicted of murder, a murder that took place in 1978. He and another man had abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who was seven months pregnant in order to steal her car in connection with a robbery. They also later killed — shot and killed a police officer.
He’s really been on death row since I think about 1982. He brought the challenge to the Supreme Court today, that the court decided today, in which he said that Florida’s rigid 70 I.Q. score cutoff violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
GWEN IFILL (Newshour): Uproar over the case of a Georgia man convicted of murder two decades ago has revived questions about how the death penalty is applied there and across the nation.
Human rights groups lined the streets of Atlanta today to protest tomorrow's scheduled execution of convicted murderer Troy Davis.
GWEN IFILL: Uproar over the case of a Georgia man convicted of murder two decades ago has revived questions about how the death penalty is applied there and across the nation.
Human rights groups lined the streets of Atlanta today to protest tomorrow's scheduled execution of convicted murderer Troy Davis.
LAURA MOYE, Amnesty International USA: This is a case that has fallen apart. Without the benefit of physical evidence, it relies on witness testimony that has come completely unraveled.
GWEN IFILL: Davis was sentenced to death in 1991 for killing an off-duty police officer. Seven of the nine witnesses who testified against him have since recanted or contradicted their testimony.
That has brought Davis the support of prominent political figures ranging from former president Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan's appointed FBI director, William Sessions, to the European Union's top diplomat.
Today's parole board decision to deny his request for clemency was Davis' likely last chance. The lengthy legal battle has included two stays of execution and an intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. The five-person state panel defended its decision, saying board members -- quote -- "considered the totality of the information presented in this case and thoroughly deliberated on it."
The debate surrounding capital punishment resurfaced as a political issue earlier this month in a Republican presidential debate. Governor Rick Perry was asked about his record in Texas, where he has presided over the execution of 234 death row inmates. That's more than any other governor.
