TO BEND A LEGISLATIVE EAR...

            

     Probably the most surprising result of pursuing ballot-issue 
campaigns for FIJA around the country was discovering that it may 
no longer be necessary to do so. In several states, upon  hearing 
about  FIJA, legislators responded by sponsoring a FIJA  bill  in 
the 1990 session.  Others have assured us they'll do so in 1991.



     The "surprise" was that legislators would get so  interested 
in a constitutional provision which would inform jurors of  their 
right to judge the handiwork of the lawmakers.  We had to  wonder 
why,  which led to asking both lawmakers and activists about  it. 
What we learned may prove valuable to those FIJActivists who plan 
to lobby or to brief lobbyists for FIJA from other groups:



     (1)  Some  legislators would simply  welcome  feedback  from 
juries in order to more accurately represent their  constituents.



     (2)  Others see that passage of FIJA would provide immediate 
gains (such as  fair treatment in court) for the interest  groups 
and constituents who elect them, without requiring any tax  hikes 
or compromises on other bills they support or oppose.   



     (3) Most legislators are painfully aware that judges seem to 
be "making" more law than the lawmakers these days: it's a  major 
separation-of-powers problem. FIJA would re-establish the jury as 
the  appropriate  judge of the law, and the  legislature  as  the 
appropriate body to respond to jury judgments.



     (4)  Many legislators need only to learn that  lawmakers  in 
other states are going to bat for FIJA,  then they give it  their 
own  attention.  Presenting them with a copy of this issue of the 
FIJActivist may be sufficient to inspire their interest. 



     (5) There are some legislators who appreciate FIJA as a  way 
for the states to reject federal intervention, as it would remind 
people they can still "say no" to laws the state legislature felt 
it had to pass because of federal pressure.



     (6)  A few lawmakers were impressed by the possibility  that 
fully  informed  juries  would save tax money,  by  reducing  the 
number  of cases that are appealed to  higher courts,  and/or  by 
reducing  prison  overcrowding  (thus the need  for  more  prison 
space)  because defendants not regarded as threats to the  safety 
of the community would more likely be acquitted than convicted.



     Since we got them from legislators, it makes sense to reason  
that these are arguments that legislators will listen to. To find     
out,  we urge that you visit, call (or if all else fails,  write)  
your  legislators, and request that they sponsor, co-sponsor,  or 
otherwise  support  FIJA.  We'll assist with  written  materials, 
phone contact, or if needs be, testimony in committee hearings by 
FIJA field representative Larry Dodge.