As is annual tradition, President Obama used his constitutionally granted pardon power the day before Thanksgiving to save one lucky turkey. But thus far, the turkey is the only recipient of a presidential pardon in 2012. Although the Constitution confers on the president the power to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,” a recent ProPublica report found that he had exercised that power more rarely than any president in modern history.

Obama’s spare use of his power to grant clemency through both pardons, which revoke an existing conviction, and commutations, which grant an early end to criminal sentences, has been documented in an extensive series by investigative outlet ProPublica. Starting after President George W. Bush’s decision early in his first term to rely on the recommendations of career pardon lawyers, the report found that whites were four times more likely than minorities to receive a presidential pardon.

As law professor Mark Osler explains in a column, the framers intended a much more robust presidential use of the pardon power:

The founding fathers did not intend for the pardon power to fall into such disuse. … Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 74, argued that “the criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

Our federal system of criminal law has, of late, been “too sanguinary and cruel.” For example, thousands of federal prisoners still languish under long sentences doled out under the now-amended 100-to-1 ratio between powder and crack cocaine that was built into the federal statutes and sentencing guidelines. … At the individual level, there are strikingly strong petitions for clemency currently before the president. … One was from Weldon Angelos, who was sentenced to 55 years in prison for three small marijuana infractions and the possession of firearms that were neither used nor brandished. He had only one prior conviction, stemming from a juvenile court charge for gun possession. […]

The result was so unfair that the sentencing judge, George W. Bush appointee Paul Cassell, pled for a presidential commutation of the sentence on the very pages of the sentencing opinion, saying that the 55-year term of imprisonment he was forced by statute to issue was “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.” Cassell substantiated this by pointing out the types of crimes that would have received a much shorter sentence: hijacking planes, raping children and murder. […]

For too long, we have filled our prisons with similar minor-league players in the drug game. It might make sense if this had solved a problem, but it hasn’t. The billions spent have not bought success at reducing drug use in this country.

As the author of the ProPublica series, Dafna Linzer, pointed out on Twitter, it was one year ago today that President Obama last issued any pardons, so it is possible another round will come soon. It can’t come soon enough. President Obama’s abysmally low clemency rate is arguably not a sign that there are less deserving applicants, but rather that the process has changed — for the worse.

On November 1, an Oklahoma law went into effect that allows residents with a license to openly carry their guns in the state. But six days after the law’s passage, a man tested the limits of the policy by walking into a polling place on Election Day with a holstered handgun on his waist. He was turned away, but returned later wearing a “disguise,” and the now-concealed gun was only discovered after he had voted. Oklahoma’s News 9 reports:

Police say on Election Day, Ethan walked into the Fountains at Canterbury Retirement Village to vote. Police say other voters noticed a handgun hanging from Ethan’s hip and some complained. Sisson was shown the door by elections monitors because open carry in public areas like polling places is still against the law.

SGT. JENNIFER WARDLOW: “They suggested possibly going out to his car putting it into his trunk, and that he would then be allowed to come back and vote.”

Police say Sisson returned two hours later, wearing a jacket and a hat that partially covered his face. He was allowed to vote. The arrest warrant says Sisson then took off his baseball cap and jacket and exposed his handgun on his hip. Ethan Sisson then told the inspector it was his right to have his gun with him. Sisson was then ordered to leave.

Oklahoma’s new “open carry” law allows individuals with permits to openly carry guns in public and into many types of businesses including restaurants, grocery stores and banks, unless they post a sign prohibiting guns. But even the generous new law does not permit guns – concealed or otherwise — at the polling place or government buildings.

Among the concerns of the law’s opponents were that those with permits would inadvertently carry guns into a school or other prohibited place, and that these facilities would be ill-prepared to screen for armed citizens. After the law’s passage, applications for handgun permits spiked 40 percent. One senator justified the law by saying it was needed to fend off attacks from wild turkeys.

As federal officials mull how to react to the passage of marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado, the head of a United Nations drug agency is urging the federal government to do whatever necessary to ensure the United States’ continued compliance with international drug treaties.

International Narcotics Control Board President Raymond Yans said laws authorizing the non-medical use of cannabis violate international drug control treaties and send ‘‘a wrong message to the rest of the nation and … a wrong message abroad.’’ Under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, marijuana is listed as a “Schedule I” drug, meaning states are tasked with implementing a system for limiting usage of the drug to medical and scientific purposes. 

Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the treaty, and some have questioned whether the treaty’s goal of protecting the “health of welfare of mankind” has been undermined by drug criminalization. As the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform explains:

The 1961 Convention was drafted and negotiated in a very different political and social environment than today. Notably, drug use was significantly less widespread and illegal drug markets were more confined geographically and less diverse. International organised crime, which profits greatly from drug trafficking, was yet to become the global phenomenon that we have seen since. HIV and its transmission through the use of syringes in drug use, as well as the prevalent use of cocaine, synthetic drugs and other stimulants were not significant concerns in 1961. Indeed, it was only after the 1961 Convention’s legislation was fully implemented, did large-scale illegal production of controlled substances begin. [...]

Although the objectives of the  1961 Convention made it clear that its aims were the improvement of the health and welfare of mankind, the measures of success which have been used in the ‘war on drugs’ approach have been the number of arrests, size of the seizures or severity of prison sentences. … “these indicators may tell us how tough we are being, but they don’t tell us how successful we are in improving the health and welfare of mankind.”

Like many international treaties, the Single Convention does not have any strong mechanism for enforcement, and other signatory countries have endured similar warnings without consequence. Canada, for example, was warned by the INCB in 2008 after it launched its “safe injection sites,” but it has since continued operating the sites and even looked to expand the program.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has, in recent years, become the leading force in the U.S. House of Representatives for campaign finance reform. As chief sponsor of the DISCLOSE 2012 Act, which was blocked from even getting a hearing in the Republican-controlled House and filibustered to death by the Republican minority in the Senate, he has been the chief advocate for greater transparency for outside groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS that keep their donors secret.

In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Van Hollen expressed optimism that his Republican colleagues may be more open to DISCLOSE and other reforms next year after they too faced secret-money attacks in their own campaigns. Public pressure, he said, will be key in getting the legislation and other reforms aimed at mitigating the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling. And, he noted, he hopes Federal Election Commission and election reform will also be priorities for the Obama administration and the 113th Congress.

Here are some highlights of Van Hollen’s comments:

The DISCLOSE Act:

The best I can say is I hope after this election, we have more converts on this issue. It was very ironic to hear [defeated] House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) complain of all the secret outside money coming into his race. He refused to even hold a hearing on the DISCLOSE Act as Chairman, which meant we had to hold a “rump” hearing, not an official Congressional hearing. I think you’re going to see greater interest from our Republican colleagues. But this will only move with outside pressure. You’ve got people like Sen. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is the sworn enemy of disclosure. He did a 180 — he used to be for full transparency and disclosure. He opposed McCain-Feingold saying we need full disclosure, not this. Then he flip-flopped, after Citizens United. What gives me hope is the public is totally on the side of disclosure and transparency – they believe the public has a right to know who’s spending gobs of secret money to influence these elections.

Other Campaign Finance Reforms:

I’m gonna continue to press on a number of fronts, including urging the IRS to determine whether or not a lot of these organizations were using the cover or their tax-exempt status in order to pursue political and electoral objectives, whether they’re meeting the tests that provide them with tax-exempt status and give them the ability to hide their donors… A number of other avenues dealing with shareholder rights with respect to corporate giving: both shareholder notice (at the very least, shareholders should be notified of corporate contributions) and shareholder approval. We saw a major development with Chevron contributing a lot of money to one of the Congressional super PACs [the company gave $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that ran attack ads against Democratic candidates]. There are corporations that essentially launder their money through other organizations to hide their identities, it’s important to shine a light on that secret money. A lot of corporations prefer to do their direct expenditure contributions in the dark.

Election Reform:

This is another important area: in addition to blatant efforts of some states to limit the democratic process, you also have indirect impediments placed on participation. Requiring someone to stand in line for 3-4 hours to vote is a limit on their rights. First, you had some states trying to limit the right to early voting. On top of that, [some states] created circumstances where you have long lines. It’s a clear impediment to people’s right to vote. It’s too early to say whether it’s bipartisan, but we’re working on a number of pieces of legislation now to deal with this set of issues. Read more