Introduction: State Executives as Catalysts for Criminal Justice Change

In the United States, criminal justice policy has traditionally been a patchwork of federal and state authority, but the vast majority of incarceration and law enforcement decisions occur at the state level. With over 1.9 million people incarcerated in state prisons and jails, the decisions made by state executives—governors, attorneys general, and other key officials—carry enormous weight. While federal reforms often dominate headlines, it is state executives who wield the practical tools to reshape sentencing, police practices, bail systems, and reentry programs. Their influence is not merely administrative; it is deeply political and strategic, capable of accelerating reform or reinforcing the status quo. Understanding how these elected leaders exercise their authority is essential for anyone tracking the trajectory of justice reform in America.

State executives operate within a complex ecosystem of legislatures, courts, advocacy groups, and public opinion. Yet their unique powers—such as budget control, executive orders, pardon and commutation authority, and prosecutorial leadership—allow them to bypass legislative gridlock or set new priorities. This article explores the specific mechanisms through which governors and attorneys general affect reform, examines real-world case studies, and outlines the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. For a broader overview of state-level reform trends, the Vera Institute of Justice provides extensive research on state policy shifts.

The Expanding Role of Governors in Criminal Justice

Governors are the most visible state executives, and their influence on criminal justice is both direct and indirect. They set the tone for their administration’s priorities, appoint key agency heads (such as corrections directors and parole board members), and hold veto power over legislation. In recent years, many governors have moved beyond symbolic gestures to enact systemic changes.

Budgetary Authority and Resource Allocation

A governor’s control over the state budget is perhaps their most powerful lever. By increasing funding for alternatives to incarceration—such as drug courts, mental health treatment, and reentry programs—a governor can shift the entire orientation of the criminal justice system. Conversely, cutting funds for prison oversight or rehabilitation can entrench mass incarceration. For example, several governors have proposed budget increases for probation and parole departments to reduce caseloads and lower recidivism. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks these budgetary trends and their impact on reform.

Clemency and Executive Pardons

Governors possess the constitutional authority to grant clemency, commutations, and pardons. This power can be used to correct unjust sentences, release elderly or terminally ill prisoners, or address systemic issues like excessive sentencing. In recent years, governors in Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and New York have used clemency to reduce prison populations and highlight flaws in mandatory minimum laws. However, the exercise of clemency remains highly discretionary and often politically risky. The Brennan Center for Justice has documented how governors can leverage clemency as a tool for reform without waiting for legislative action.

Executive Orders and Policy Directives

Executive orders allow governors to enact policy changes without legislative approval. These can cover a wide range of areas, from banning chokeholds by state police to establishing oversight boards for use-of-force incidents. In 2020, following national protests over police brutality, dozens of governors issued executive orders mandating body cameras, banning no-knock warrants, or creating databases for officer misconduct. While such orders can be reversed by successors, they often serve as a catalyst for permanent legislation.

Legislative Agenda Setting and Veto Power

Governors can champion reform bills in their State of the State addresses, lobby legislators, and use the threat of veto to shape final legislation. For instance, governors in states like Louisiana and Utah have pushed for the elimination of mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses. Conversely, a governor’s veto can block progressive measures, such as when some governors struck down efforts to reduce prison sentences. The interplay between governors and state legislatures is a critical dynamic, as detailed by the National Governors Association.

Attorneys General: Persuasion, Precedent, and Prosecutorial Power

While attorneys general are often viewed as the state’s chief legal officer, their impact on criminal justice reform extends far beyond courtroom arguments. They issue formal opinions that guide law enforcement, set enforcement priorities, and can influence the behavior of local prosecutors. Unlike governors, attorneys general are often elected independently, giving them a distinct political mandate.

Attorneys general frequently issue opinions on the legality of proposed policies or the interpretation of existing laws. These opinions carry substantial weight and can shape how police departments, district attorneys, and state agencies operate. For example, an attorney general’s opinion on the use of cash bail or the expungement of criminal records can either open the door to reform or close it. In states like California and New York, attorneys general have issued guidance encouraging local prosecutors to decline to prosecute low-level offenses, thereby reducing jail populations.

Litigation and Multistate Actions

Through multistate lawsuits, attorneys general can challenge federal policies or set national precedents. For instance, coalitions of attorneys general have sued the federal government over changes to the Violence Against Women Act, or over conditions in private prisons. Such actions can force changes in federal enforcement priorities. Additionally, attorneys general can sue pharmaceutical companies for their role in the opioid crisis, using settlements to fund addiction treatment and diversion programs. This litigation power is a significant reform lever, as highlighted by the National Association of Attorneys General.

Prosecutorial Discretion and Charging Policies

Attorneys general often oversee state-level prosecution of certain crimes, such as organized crime, public corruption, or hate crimes. They can issue directives to local prosecutors or set uniform charging standards. In recent years, several attorneys general have adopted policies to stop seeking cash bail, decline to prosecute marijuana possession, or establish conviction review units. These moves can dramatically alter the criminal justice landscape without a single bill being passed.

Data Collection and Transparency

Many attorneys general have used their office to collect and publish data on racial disparities in arrests, convictions, and sentencing. By shining a light on inequities, they build the case for reform. Some have created civil rights divisions within their offices to investigate police departments or prosecute hate crimes. This use of data and transparency is a growing trend, as discussed by the Urban Institute.

Key Reform Areas Most Affected by State Executives

State executives have focused their efforts on several critical areas:

  • Bail Reform: Governors and attorneys general have championed the elimination of cash bail for nonviolent offenses, arguing it punishes poverty. New Jersey’s bail reform, led by the governor and attorney general, resulted in a 20% reduction in jail populations.
  • Sentencing Guidelines: Efforts to reduce mandatory minimums, eliminate three-strikes provisions, and expand judicial discretion have been pushed by governors in states like Mississippi and Oklahoma.
  • Police Accountability: Attorneys general have pursued pattern-or-practice investigations of police departments, while governors have signed bills on use-of-force standards and misconduct reporting.
  • Prison Conditions and Reentry: Executive orders on prison oversight, visitation, and rehabilitation programs have been issued to improve conditions and reduce recidivism.
  • Juvenile Justice: Raising the age of criminal responsibility, ending the prosecution of juveniles as adults, and expanding diversion programs are all areas where state executives have taken action.

Case Studies: How State Executives Drive Reform in Action

California: From Tough on Crime to Rehabilitation

California’s journey from the harshest sentencing laws in the country to a leader in reform illustrates the power of governors. Governor Gavin Newsom successfully pushed for the elimination of cash bail, signed bills to reduce prison sentences, and expanded mental health courts. His administration also championed Proposition 57, which increased parole opportunities for nonviolent offenders. Meanwhile, the California Attorney General has been active in suing the federal government over immigration policies and issuing guidance to local prosecutors on reducing racial disparities. The result: prison population dropped by over 25% in a decade.

New York: Progressive Leadership Under Attorneys General

New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has used her office to launch investigations into police departments, including the Buffalo Police and the New York City Police Department, for patterns of excessive force and racial profiling. She also filed a landmark lawsuit against the NRA, arguing its practices harmed public safety. Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation to reform discovery laws, ban solitary confinement for certain populations, and expand the state’s clean slate law for automatic record sealing. Together, they have made New York a model for executive-driven reform.

Texas: Conservative Paths to Prison Reduction

Even in a traditionally conservative state, governors have found common ground with reformers. Under Governor Greg Abbott, Texas expanded drug courts, increased funding for probation and parole, and invested in mental health treatment instead of new prison construction. The state’s Texas Justice Initiative, supported by the Attorney General, has published data on deaths in custody and launched a conviction review unit. These efforts, while less progressive than California’s, demonstrate how state executives can reduce incarceration rates without alienating their political base.

Challenges to Executive-Led Reform

Despite their powers, state executives face formidable obstacles. Political opposition from legislatures, especially when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties, can stymie even popular reforms. Budget constraints, particularly during economic downturns, limit options for new programs. Legal challenges from prosecutors' associations or civil rights groups can block executive orders. Moreover, the partisanship of state executives themselves can polarize reform efforts; some governors prioritize punitive measures while others pursue leniency. Another challenge is the lack of consistent data: many states still struggle to track recidivism, racial disparities, or the impact of reforms.

Yet opportunities abound. Bipartisan coalitions are increasingly finding common ground around issues like reducing technical parole violations, expanding reentry support, and addressing mental health. Collaboration between governors and attorneys general—even when they belong to different parties—can produce stronger reforms than either can achieve alone. The growing public demand for accountability and fairness in the justice system provides a powerful political tailwind.

The Path Forward: Recommendations for State Executives

To maximize their impact, state executives should consider the following strategies:

  1. Leverage Data: Use transparent data collection to identify disparities, track outcomes, and build public support for reform. Independent bodies like the Council of State Governments Justice Center offer technical assistance.
  2. Combine Powers: Governors should coordinate with attorneys general to ensure that executive orders, litigation, and enforcement priorities align. Joint task forces can accelerate change.
  3. Focus on Reentry: Invest in parole reform, job training, housing, and healthcare for released individuals. Clemency should be used proactively to correct unjust sentences.
  4. Engage Communities: Hold public hearings, collaborate with formerly incarcerated leaders, and listen to victims’ advocates to build trust and legitimacy.
  5. Build Bipartisan Support: Frame reforms around fiscal savings, public safety outcomes, and rehabilitation rather than partisan ideology.

State executives are uniquely positioned to drive criminal justice reform. Their powers, when used strategically, can produce rapid and lasting change. By focusing on evidence-based policies, transparency, and collaboration, they can move the nation closer to a system that is fair, effective, and humane. As the federal government often deadlocks on major reforms, states remain the laboratories of democracy—and the executives who lead them hold the keys to meaningful progress.