California Proposition 6 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

1 Provisions of Prop 6
- 1.1 Estimated fiscal impact
2 Supporters of Prop. 6
3 Opposition to Prop. 6
- 3.1 Arguments against Prop. 6
- 3.2 Donors who oppose Prop. 6
4 External links
5 References
6 Additional reading

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California.

Proposition 6 places additional penalties on crime. Supporters turned in over 750,000 signatures on April 25 to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot, and the measure was subsequently approved for the ballot.^[1],^[2]

Provisions of Prop 6

Proposition 6 would:

Require new state spending on various criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. This funding would come from California's General Fund, reallocating funds currently spent on K-12 Education, Higher Education, Health and Human Services, Business, Transportation and Housing, and Environmental Protection ^[3]
Deems any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court, thus, prosecuting these youth as adults.
Necessitate that all occupants who are recipients of public housing subsidies submit to annual criminal background checks. If any occupant did not pass this criminal background check, the entire family would be removed from their housing.
Increase penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons.
Eliminate bail for undocumented individuals charged with violent or gang-related felonies.
Establish as a crime the act of removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence.
Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.^[4]
Require a 3/4 vote to ammend.
Requires only a majority vote to add

Estimated fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 6's estimated costs:

Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations.
Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities.
Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies.^[5]

Funds to pay for these costs, should Prop. 6 pass, will come from California's general fund.^[6]

In the current California state budget, $600 million dollars is set aside to assist with local law enforcement. If the initiative passes, an additional $350 million will be required to enforce some of its provisions.^[7]

Supporters of Prop. 6

The official sponsors of the initiative are Mike Reynolds,^[8], author of the original 3 Strikes Initiative, San Bernardino Fourth District Supervisor Gary Ovitt,^[9] and California State Senator George Runner.^[10],^[11],^[12]

Notable supporters of Prop. 6 include the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and a number of county and local sheriffs.

Arguments in favor of Prop. 6

On their website, the sponsors of Prop 6 say their measure^[13]:

"Creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shooting, meth distribution and victim intimidation."
"Creates more effective and accountable intervention programs to stop young kids from joining gangs."
"Helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities."
"Prohibits bail for illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes."
"Ensures funding for local police, sheriff, district attorneys and probation officers."

Consultants

The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was conducted by National Petition Management, at a cost of $1.022 million.^[14]

Donors who support Prop. 6

The name of the official campaign committee supporting Prop. 6 is Committee to Take Back Our Neighborhoods.^[15]

As of July 14, 2008, eight of the largest donors to Prop. 6 included:

Henry Nicholas, $1,000,000
Larry Rasmussen, $200,000
Taxpayers for George Runner and George Runner for Senate 2008, together, $89,000
Committee to Elect Gary Ovitt, $50,000
The Golden State Bail Agents Association for Public Safety, $40,000
California Association of Healthcare Underwriters, $35,000
The Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, $25,000
The Peace Officer Research Association, $25,000^[16]

Nicholas, who was arraigned on June 16, 2008 on charges that include drug use, security fraud and conspiracy, has withdrawn from active support of the initiative, though the campaign has stated they will not return his $1,000,000 contribution. He has pled not guilty to the charges.^[17] ^[18] ^[19] ^[20]

Opposition to Prop. 6

The officially-filed committee opposing Proposition 6 is known as No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility.

Notable members of the opposition coalition include the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles City Council, the League of Women Voters, California Church IMPACT and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.^[21]

Arguments against Prop. 6

On their website opponents of Prop 6 say they disagree with the initiative because:

It "divert(s) billions from California's schools, hospitals and childcare centers. By funding failed prison and policing policies, it would deepen the state's ongoing budget crisis."
It "target(s) youth for adult incarceration, deeming any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court or housing in a youth prison."
"Target(s) poor people, forcing recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to annual criminal background checks with the intention of withdrawing the housing subsidies of people with recent criminal convictions."
"Target(s) undocumented immigrants by denying bail to those charged with violent or gang-related crimes and requiring local sheriffs to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and charges of people who are undocumented.
Individuals who are not affiliated with gangs are listed in gang databases and would be falsely prosecuted under this provision.^[22].
Creates mandatory criminal background tests for recipients of public housing; those with any family member unable to pass this testing with a clear record would lose their housing.
Half of Californians are in favor of cutting prison spending. only 3.6% of Californians are in favor of cutting health care funds and 5% in favor of cutting school funding. Proposition 6 will increase funding to prisons and cut funding to health care and schools^[23].

Donors who oppose Prop. 6

The name of the official campaign committee opposing Prop. 6 is No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility Sponsored by the Ella Baker Center.^[24]

As of September 5, 2008, the five largest donors against Prop. 6 consisted of the Ella Baker Center and four labor unions:

California Teachers Association (Labor Union), $72,805
California State Council of Service Employees/Service Employees International Union (Labor Union), $47,805
California Federation of Teachers (Labor Union), $25,000
Ella Baker Center, $25,000
California Professional Firefighters (Labor Union), $1,950^[25]