By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

For generations, the fight against racial bias within America’s legal system has been a long and arduous journey. A significant setback in this struggle arrived with the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, which ruled that statistical evidence showing racial disparities in sentencing was insufficient to prove a constitutional violation (stanford.edu). The Court instead required defendants to demonstrate intentional discrimination in their specific case, a nearly impossible standard that effectively closed federal courthouse doors to challenges based on systemic racial disparities (stanford.edu). This decision established a "constitutional floor," representing the minimum level of rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, which states are allowed to surpass but never diminish ((wisc.edu), (lwv.org)).

California chose to provide greater protections, moving beyond this federal minimum. The California Racial Justice Act of 2020, also known as Assembly Bill 2542, was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2020 ((stanford.edu), (ca.gov)). This groundbreaking Act directly counters the McCleskey precedent by prohibiting the state from seeking a conviction or imposing a sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin (stanford.edu). Importantly, it expands the ways a defendant can prove discrimination, allowing for the use of statistical data showing racial disparities in charging, conviction, or sentencing processes, rather than demanding proof of intentional bias (stanford.edu). The legislative intent behind this Act explicitly recognizes that implicit bias, even when unintentional, can inject racism and unfairness into legal proceedings, and its purpose is to remedy this harm to the defendant's case and to the integrity of the judicial system (stanford.edu).

Initially, the CRJA applied only to cases sentenced after January 1, 2021. However, recognizing the need to address past injustices, Assembly Bill 256, known as the "Racial Justice for All Act," was signed in September 2022, making the CRJA retroactive through a phased-in approach ((stanford.edu), (aclucalaction.org)). As of January 1, 2024, all individuals incarcerated on a felony conviction became eligible to file a claim, regardless of how old the judgment may be (stanford.edu). By January 1, 2026, all felony convictions and juvenile commitments, no matter their age, will be eligible for review under the Act (stanford.edu).

The retroactivity of the California Racial Justice Act is now being put to the test, particularly in cases involving California’s "Three Strikes" law. This law, enacted in 1994, significantly increases sentences for repeat felony offenders, aiming to deter crime by imposing harsher penalties (stanford.edu). A "strike" is generally recorded for a conviction for a serious or violent felony (stanford.edu). If a person with one prior strike conviction commits any new felony, the sentence for the new felony is doubled ((stanford.edu), (losangelescriminallawyer.pro)). Even more severely, if a person with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions commits any new felony, they face an indeterminate life sentence, typically a minimum of 25 years to life, even if the third offense is considered minor ((stanford.edu), (losangelescriminallawyer.pro)).

The original intent behind the "Three Strikes" law was to enhance public safety by incapacitating repeat offenders, ensuring they served lengthy prison terms (stanford.edu). However, the actual implementation of this law has faced considerable criticism. Its application has contributed to overcrowded prisons and has disproportionately affected minority populations, including Black and Latino individuals ((stanford.edu), (stanford.edu), (calbudgetcenter.org)). For instance, under the "Three Strikes" law, even minor offenses can lead to life sentences for individuals with two prior serious or violent felony convictions (stanford.edu).

Examples of such "minor offenses" that have tragically led to life sentences for Black and Latino individuals include shoplifting items of relatively low value, petty theft (especially with a prior theft conviction), and even simple possession of small amounts of controlled substances or other minor drug offenses (stanford.edu). The law's strict application means that these non-violent, low-level felonies can result in life imprisonment for repeat offenders, exacerbating the already dire situation for Black and Latino communities (stanford.edu). This harsh reality underscores the urgent need for tools like the CRJA to address the systemic racial disparities embedded within such punitive laws.

This bar chart illustrates that Black men in California were incarcerated at a rate 9.6 times higher than white men in 2019 ((stanford.edu), (stanford.edu)).

The ongoing legal challenge in Los Angeles is spearheaded by attorneys from Stanford Law School's Three Strikes Project, working in collaboration with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) (stanford.edu). The LDF is America's first and oldest legal organization dedicated to fighting for racial justice (naacpldf.org). Founded in 1940 by the legendary Thurgood Marshall, it initially operated as part of the NAACP but became a completely separate organization with its own distinct leadership and board in 1957 ((naacpldf.org), (wisc.edu)). The LDF's primary mission is to achieve racial justice, equality, and an inclusive society through litigation, advocacy, and public education (naacpldf.org). Its historic achievements include playing a pivotal role in landmark civil rights cases, most notably *Brown v. Board of Education*, which led to the desegregation of public schools (naacpldf.org).

The push to apply the Racial Justice Act retroactively is built upon extensive statistical evidence revealing deep-seated racial disparities across California's criminal justice system (stanford.edu). For example, Black Californians are significantly overrepresented in the state's prisons. In 2019, Black men were incarcerated at a rate 9.6 times higher than white men, an increase from 9.1 times in 2010 ((stanford.edu), (stanford.edu)). Overall, Black men constituted over one-quarter (28%) of incarcerated men in California, despite making up only 6% of the total male population ((stanford.edu), (stanford.edu)). Moreover, American Indian and Latinx men are also overrepresented in state prisons (stanford.edu).

Further research from Stanford University indicates that Black individuals in California receive prison sentences that are, on average, more than 30% longer than white individuals who committed the same crime and have similar criminal histories ((stanford.edu), (stanford.edu)). Specifically in Los Angeles County, data show that Black people are serving life sentences for attempted robbery under the Three Strikes law at more than 13 times the rate of white defendants, and their sentences are 36% longer (stanford.edu). The "Three Strikes" law has disproportionately impacted communities of color, with nearly half of all individuals serving a "third strike" sentence in the state being Black ((stanford.edu), (afsc.org)). This pervasive racial bias extends beyond sentencing, influencing multiple stages of the criminal process. Black and Latinx individuals face more policing and arrests, increased pretrial detention, and harsher sentences than similarly situated white individuals ((stanford.edu), (acgov.org)). These disparities are particularly pronounced for minor offenses such as drug and property crimes (stanford.edu). Additionally, studies suggest that prosecutors are more likely to offer white defendants opportunities for "deferred judgment" (stanford.edu). Deferred judgment is a legal procedure where a defendant pleads guilty or no contest, but the court postpones entering a final judgment or sentencing (brownsteinlawgroup.com). The defendant is placed on probation and required to meet specific conditions; if successful, the original charges may be dismissed, allowing them to avoid a conviction on their record (brownsteinlawgroup.com).

This bar chart indicates that Black individuals in California receive prison sentences that are, on average, over 30% longer than white individuals for the same crimes ((stanford.edu), (stanford.edu)).

The practical application of the CRJA's retroactivity provisions is now being significantly tested in Los Angeles. Attorneys from Stanford Law School's Three Strikes Project, in collaboration with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have filed 18 petitions (stanford.edu). These petitions seek to reduce the prison terms of Black and Latino individuals who are serving life sentences, primarily for minor offenses under California's "Three Strikes" law (stanford.edu). The legal teams are arguing that these sentences reflect "gross racial disparities" in how Black and Latino people have been punished compared to white individuals for similar crimes (stanford.edu).

The objective of these petitions is not to dismiss cases where guilt is proven, but rather to have the clients resentenced to terms comparable to those received by white individuals for the same crimes and circumstances (stanford.edu). This effort is particularly significant because, according to an analysis by Stanford Law and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, no California judge has yet granted a petition under the Racial Justice Act specifically for disparate sentencing since its inception (stanford.edu). This ongoing legal challenge highlights the Act's potential to reach into and rectify racially biased sentences from the past, serving as a crucial test of its intended impact on old convictions (stanford.edu).

The absence of granted petitions for disparate sentencing under the CRJA is due to several factors. One significant factor is the novelty of the law itself, meaning courts are still grappling with how to interpret and apply its provisions, especially concerning the evidentiary standards for demonstrating racial bias without needing to prove explicit intent (stanford.edu). There is also a high evidentiary bar in practice; even though the law allows for statistical evidence, presenting and interpreting this data in a way that conclusively proves racial discrimination to a judge's satisfaction can be challenging (stanford.edu). Furthermore, there may be judicial resistance or a cautious approach from judges who are navigating new legal territory and the potential broad implications of such rulings (stanford.edu). Procedural hurdles and the complexity of these cases, which often demand extensive statistical analysis and expert testimony, also contribute to the lack of granted petitions (stanford.edu). The CRJA allows for challenges where racial discrimination was a factor by permitting the use of statistical data showing racial disparities in charging, convictions, or sentencing (stanford.edu). This data can include patterns of racial bias in the justice system (stanford.edu). The Act clarifies that intent to discriminate does not need to be proven, only that a racial disparity exists (stanford.edu). The CRJA also specifically accounts for implicit bias by explicitly stating that racial bias does not need to be intentional to be actionable (stanford.edu). It focuses on the existence of racial disparities or the impact of bias, even if unconscious, by allowing statistical evidence to demonstrate patterns of racial disparities in various stages of the legal process (stanford.edu).

This pie chart shows that nearly half of all individuals serving a "third strike" sentence in California are Black ((stanford.edu), (afsc.org)).

The Stanford Law School and NAACP Legal Defense Fund petitions represent a pivotal moment for the California Racial Justice Act, and their outcome carries significant broader implications. If these petitions are successful, they would validate the CRJA as a powerful tool for addressing racial disparities in sentencing (stanford.edu). This success could then open the door for thousands of similar challenges statewide, establishing new legal precedents (stanford.edu). Furthermore, it could lead to the resentencing or even release of individuals who received harsher sentences due to racial bias, potentially influencing other states to adopt similar legislation (stanford.edu).

Conversely, if the petitions are unsuccessful, it could significantly limit the perceived effectiveness and reach of the Act in practice (stanford.edu). Such an outcome might signal that the evidentiary bar remains too high, or that judicial interpretation of the law is too restrictive (stanford.edu). This would represent a setback for racial justice advocates and might necessitate legislative amendments to strengthen the CRJA or require new strategies to address systemic racial bias in the legal system (stanford.edu). The "history behind the headlines" of California prisoners using the Racial Justice Act to cut sentences reveals a deliberate legislative response to deeply ingrained racial disparities in the criminal justice system (stanford.edu). These disparities were previously shielded by a high legal standard of proof that demanded evidence of intentional discrimination (stanford.edu).

The current efforts by Stanford Law School and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Los Angeles represent a critical test of whether this legislation can effectively remedy past and present injustices (stanford.edu). It will compel courts to acknowledge and correct sentences tainted by racial bias, ultimately moving California closer to a system that delivers truly equal justice for all (stanford.edu). The fight for racial justice is a continuous struggle, and this moment in California offers a glimpse into how legal reforms can attempt to right historical wrongs and pave the way for a more equitable future.

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.