Proposition Six Ironic
[Moving up in honor of the Boalt Hall Democrats' proposition guide and also, you know, the eminent election and all.]
[Update 10/15: The California District Attorneys' Association also supports Prop. 6.]
On the 2008 ballot, Proposition 6 is the "Safe Neighborhoods Act." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean . . . safe neighborhoods: You're either for 'em or against 'em, right?
Here are a few key provisions of the initiative. Prop. 6, if passed, would: increase penalties for firearm and drug crimes; require recipients of public housing subsidies submit to criminal background checks and lose housing if they or someone in their family has been convicted of a recent crime; eliminate bail for illegal aliens; change rules of evidence to allow use of hearsay statements when witnesses are unavailable; divert several billion from the CA general fund; and require a majority vote to add, but a 3/4 vote to amend. (Source.)
Proponents (including Golden State Bail Agents Association and the CA Association of Healthcare Underwriters*) argue Prop. 6 cracks down and gets tough on crime.
Opponents (including the CA Professional Firefighters; the CA Labor Federation; the current LA Police Chief; the former LA Police Chief; the LA Times; the CA Teachers Association; the CA National Organization for Women; the LA City Council; the League of Women Voters; and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights) point out that the funding scheme diverts billions from California schools, hospitals and childcare centers, that criminal background checks for public housing recipients target the poor, and that changes in rules of evidence and prosecution guidelines increase (dramatically) the damage caused to persons falsely prosecuted.
In summary, if you like nurses, firefighters, women's rights, labor, human rights, and teachers, vote "no." If you favor bail agents and insurance underwriters, vote "yes."
It gets even better.
The primary supporter of Prop. 6 -- by a long shot -- is billionaire Henry Nicholas. As of July 2008 Nicholas had contributed $1,000,000 to get the measure passed. This is nothing new; Nicholas (who co-founded Broadcom) has supported various 'tough on crime' projects in the past and, according to coworkers on former initiatives, is passionate about crime:
Passionate about crime, indeed.
----------------------------
[Update 10/15: The California District Attorneys' Association also supports Prop. 6.]
----------------------------
On the 2008 ballot, Proposition 6 is the "Safe Neighborhoods Act." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean . . . safe neighborhoods: You're either for 'em or against 'em, right?
Here are a few key provisions of the initiative. Prop. 6, if passed, would: increase penalties for firearm and drug crimes; require recipients of public housing subsidies submit to criminal background checks and lose housing if they or someone in their family has been convicted of a recent crime; eliminate bail for illegal aliens; change rules of evidence to allow use of hearsay statements when witnesses are unavailable; divert several billion from the CA general fund; and require a majority vote to add, but a 3/4 vote to amend. (Source.)
Proponents (including Golden State Bail Agents Association and the CA Association of Healthcare Underwriters*) argue Prop. 6 cracks down and gets tough on crime.
Opponents (including the CA Professional Firefighters; the CA Labor Federation; the current LA Police Chief; the former LA Police Chief; the LA Times; the CA Teachers Association; the CA National Organization for Women; the LA City Council; the League of Women Voters; and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights) point out that the funding scheme diverts billions from California schools, hospitals and childcare centers, that criminal background checks for public housing recipients target the poor, and that changes in rules of evidence and prosecution guidelines increase (dramatically) the damage caused to persons falsely prosecuted.
In summary, if you like nurses, firefighters, women's rights, labor, human rights, and teachers, vote "no." If you favor bail agents and insurance underwriters, vote "yes."
It gets even better.
The primary supporter of Prop. 6 -- by a long shot -- is billionaire Henry Nicholas. As of July 2008 Nicholas had contributed $1,000,000 to get the measure passed. This is nothing new; Nicholas (who co-founded Broadcom) has supported various 'tough on crime' projects in the past and, according to coworkers on former initiatives, is passionate about crime:
Nicholas' behavior during [the last two weeks of the 2004 Prop. 66 campaign] was strange. He seemed to work all night, rarely sleeping. With the assistance of then Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, Nicholas pulled an all-nighter in the Long Beach home studio of a rock musician to make "No on 66" radio ads. He then started calling radio stations over the last weekend, begging managers to broadcast the ads despite full slates. It all seemed manic, but Nicholas told me at the time he simply had a passion for crime . . .What motivated that mania? Click here to read Nicholas' 18 page grand jury indictment, alleging he maintained an LA condo for the purpose of cocaine and ecstasy distribution (it has since come to light that the condo was also the scene of violence, and prostitution). Click here to read Nicholas' 65 page securities fraud indictment alleging backdating of Broadcom stock options without properly reporting the transactions to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Passionate about crime, indeed.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Patrick Bageant at 3:32 PM
37 Comments:
Where does California come up with this shit? I hate the proposition system. I'm moving.
You might want to change indictment before the flames start.
haha, thanks.
Where the F is the class schedule?! Is this like how Mindy "lost" the link to the finals schedule?
I'm new to California voting, and I'm a little overwhelmed by having to decide on twelve different propositions. Can we have a thread on them? Other than the obvious ones (gay marriage, high-speed train), I think a lot of them have nuances that aren't really clear.
I used to do threads discussing each prop on the ballot, then I realized it's easier to just vote no on all of them, except for the really obvious ones.
Armen's advice is sound. Many of these propositions take the form of ballot initiatives to amend the state constitution because they would never stand a chance in the legislature. Take a moment to sit and think about that for a second, if you haven't already. (Matt might be looking for a roommate. FYI.)
Re. voting discussion: I just left the Boalt Dems meeting where the organization decided how they will recommend people vote the various initiatives, and why. When I get an electronic copy I will add it into this thread, which can be an open forum.
For what it's worth, I'm probably going Yes on 1A-3, No on 4-11, and Yes on 12. Five was a close one - it doesn't look like the Dems will recommend on it - and I think I split with the Boalt Dems on one other one in the 4-11 group. But otherwise, it's pretty consistent.
I also noticed that this site provides relatively good summaries of what's at stake and who's who on each side.
And this is the number one reason why you should vote yes on Prop 2. (I mean, seriously, bird flu? That's your argument?)
The animal one? Oh man that's going to be my biggest no. If you want cage free animals you can buy them. Why do I have to pay for your overbroad conscience?
Uhhhh. What's next, mandating Apple computers, organic food, and Priuses for everyone?
Has there ever been anything beneficial that has been accomplished via proposition that could not have been passed through the legislature?
Three words re: the 10 billion dollar train (i.e., three billion more than current budget shortfall).
"Monorail, monorail, monorail!"
Armen,
I suppose you may have a point. But the No on 2 campaign is alleging bird flu! In big, bold, italic white font on a hysteric red background! That, right there, was enough to make me not support them. Perhaps I'll just take a pass on that one.
When the legislature's failure to pass it is due to personal self-interest rather than policy or serving constituents. Vote yes on 11.
Patrick,
Re: "lose housing if they or someone in their family has been convicted of a recent crime"
Sadly, this is not as distant of a reality as it seems. I had a pro bono client this summer whose public house lease said that he agreed to be evicted if he or anybody who lived with him participated in criminal activity, regardless of conviction or arrest.
I found this fairly disturbing, as I'm sure you do by the way you phrased the post. Turns out it was required to be in the lease by statute. Unconstitutional? Apparently not: the Court spoke to it in HUD v. Rucker (2002):
We hold that “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” [cite omitted] requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug-related activity.
The basic arguments were 1) it's an agreement that the tenant has consented to in exchange for low-price housing [imho - its an adhesion contract when the only alternative is sleeping on the street]; 2) it's not mandating eviction, but instead giving the local authorities the right to do so; 3) public housing is very limited, and we'd rather have people in there who aren't causing problems.
From my limited experience and research, that second point actually turns out to be pretty true. The housing authority has been fairly reasonable about this provision, and typically seems to only enforce it aggressively against drug crimes. The Rucker case was an example of that aggressiveness, where they basically evicted, among others, grandma because of her granddaughter's pot possession a couple blocks away.
The statute, which I unintentionally omitted along with the case cite, is 42 USC 1437d(l)(6).
Brandon, here is what I thought of when I read the proposition:
Husband, wife, and children live in public housing. Husband beats wife and Children. Wife, after much concern, intimidation, and self-doubt, files for divorce and obtains a restraining order against Husband.
Are Wife and Children vulnerable to eviction?
*should read: vulnerable to eviction if she pursues battery charges?
Exactly, Patrick. But I'd say, the way I read that provision, that she's vulnerable to eviction if anybody outside that household finds out that there was an attack.
I used a similar, but possibly even more frightening, hypothetical when explaining it at work: tenant comes home to his apartment, finds that his apartment is currently being burglarized. Tenant is attacked by burglar. Tenant defends himself by physically attacking and wounding the burglar.
Tenant has committed a criminal act, but one that is easily defensible (self-defense). Regardless, it's a criminal act. He can't be convicted, he probably won't be arrested. Regardless, yeah. He could be evicted.
The Court's defense to this is that the lease provision creates a permissible but not mandatory right to evict, and that the discretion belongs to the local housing authority. And probably, no housing authority would evict either of our hypothetical tenants.
Your hypothetical identifies one problem with the "or his family" element. The other one on that prong that really bothered me was this "outside the control or knowledge" of the tenant bit. This granddaughter was doing drugs blocks away, and grandma had no idea and thus had no way of stopping it or controlling it to protect her lease.
The case is here to those interested: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1770.ZO.html or 535 U.S. 125
The California District Attorneys' Association supports the measure. Please list it alongside the Bail Agents and Healthcare Underwriters.
And, in all fairness, the LA County Sheriff.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt6.htm
Point taken, but don't you think that if I listed everyone on both sides of this issue, the "yes" crowd would look even more pathetic than it already does?
Ya but you listed the LA City Sheriff and used it as to suggest that "peace officers" were opposed to the measure.
In fact, most police agencies and DAs in the state are, understandably, for it.
Given the level of violence that can readily plague public housing, the residents need to be protected by a prophylactic measure that can be used to prevent deterioration without resort to eons of costly litigation and triggering the "tipping point" problem as well. perhaps one of the most important civil rights of disadvantaged public housing tenants is the right to a minimal level of safety and security.
Right. Because public housing recipients who are burglarized by the guy down the hall feel like their civil rights have been violated. When the burglars break in from the street, though, they just feel violated.
Can someone please explain proposition 11 in a way that will not make my eyes glaze over? I understand that the current system is a tool for entrenchment but I don't understand how adding six or seven layers of new bureaucracy will help.
8:54,
My best guess is that adding more layers of bureaucracy won't help, which is why I'm voting against it.
I did hear someone articulate this argument in support: the current system is messed up, and any system we replace it with will have its flaws, including this one. So, we might as well start with this one. If it works, it works; if it doesn't, we go back to the drawing board.
It's understandable that police chiefs, sheriffs and DAs support Prop 6 because it divies a billion dollars in state tax money up among them. That's a massive increase in current spending, and locks that spending in without annual review or accountability.
Not only is your local fire chief and school principal angry at a money grab that doesn't pay for itself -- therefore requiring cuts in other services -- so are conservative taxpayer and business groups who oppose ballot box budget increases. www.votenoprop6.com for a partial list of opposition.
By the way, who is expecting a tuition increase if all these budget busters get passed?
The most important part of prop 11 is it requires consensus among committee members, the members of the committee are selected randomly from a large pool, and you cannot become a committee member if you or close relative cannot have been a federal or state political candidate, lobbyist or donor of $2,000 or more to a candidate.
Prop. 11 isn't ideal. The ideal system would be a randomish computer algorithm that tries to minimize the ratio of circumference of districts to their area (look at Cal. district 38 to see what this is trying to avoid), results in approximately equal districts, and follows existing political boundaries (city / county lines) as closely as possible without violating the other objectives. However, somehow I doubt voters will ever go for a computer algorithm on the ballot.
Oh this is redistricting? That's an automatic NO. I'll considered changes to California's redistricting after Texas adopts a remotely fair redistricting plan of its own.
spring courses are up!
Armen - An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind (and filled with crappy permanently employed legislators).
Well thanks to an idiotic proposition we imposed term limits on legislators...causing a severe lack of experience and an emphasis on short-term legislation as opposed to long-term governing.
Armen - That's only for the California assembly & senate (and other California positions). The gerrymandering also affects house congressional districts, which have no term limits.
I assumed the comment above mine was directed at Cal legislators, but rereading I get what it's talking about. The point still stands. California has one of the fairest redistricting systems around (read: the minority party doesn't get screwed over). So, I'm still not voting for change until Texas abolishes its Tom DeLay inspired partisan ****fest.
Re: Prop. 6. I'm going to vote yes, but it's tough call. There is a good provision is prohibiting the release on bail of illegal aliens charged with violent crimes. Its principal purpose is to lock up an increasing portion of the state budget for local law enforcement. Law enforcement should be government's top priority, but auto-spending or using state resources for local programs is not good. I this it has a provision that weakens the hearsay rule. But I think it does more good than harm, but not totally straightforwardly so.
Voting for Prop 6 because you agree with a narrow provision (or two) is really limited. You don't get to pick and choose with this proposition; you vote for a portion, you vote for all. Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or whatever idiom more accurately sums up taking a really harmful action for a much smaller benefit).
Propositions are accountable to no one, difficult to fix, often poorly drafted, lock in policies that become irrelevant or bad as society evolves/changes and times move on. The initiative system doesn't really serve or represent the California public, and I think Armen is right on with recommending a straight "no" vote.
Weakens the hearsay rule? I'm voting against anything that will make studying for the CA bar more difficult. VOTE NO ON PROP 6!!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home