Ballot measure takes wrong approach

By David Muhammad

Nov. 4 may prove to be the biggest election in United States history. Voter turnout is likely to be the largest ever. But in addition to choosing the next American president, California voters will also decide on several ballot measures, including Proposition 6.

Prop. 6 is a ballot initiative sponsored by Republican state Senator George Runner and funded by billionaire Henry Nicholas. Depicted by proponents as the Safe Neighborhoods Act, the proposition will divert billions from schools, health care and firefighters to fund surveillance and increased incarceration.

The initiative will cost California taxpayers $1 billion in fiscal year 2009-2010, $500 million in the subsequent year and more each year thereafter for prisons, jails and law enforcement costs. Prop. 6 would require spending at least a half a billion dollars on new prison construction at a time when California spends four times as much per prisoner than per public school student.

In recent years, advocates and practitioners alike have tended to agree that the harsh “get tough on crime” measures of the ’90s were not cost effective. Prop. 6 is a politically motivated effort that runs counter to virtually all non-partisan policy analysis that show that prevention and treatment efforts are far less costly and much more effective than the heavy-handed measures Prop. 6 would mandate. Even the powerful California prison guards union, which has always advocated for increased incarceration, has recently acknowledged the need for more rehabilitative and treatment programs, especially for youth.

Prop. 6 proponents claim to fund “crime prevention programs,” yet Prop. 6 would eliminate some of the current funding for mental health and drug treatment without providing any new prevention programs — only three percent of Prop. 6 funds would go to youth-targeted alternatives.

Although California’s overall juvenile felony rate is now at its lowest level since 1955, Prop. 6 would facilitate the prosecution of more youth as adults. The ballot initiative would create more than 50 changes to criminal law, which would result in increased sentencing and incarceration even though prisons are already at nearly 200 percent capacity.

Nicholas, who donated millions to get two crime-related initiatives on the November ballot, was charged earlier this year on a 21-count indictment that includes charges of supplying prostitutes to big-ticket customers, drug use and trafficking, conspiracy, security fraud and making death threats. Nicholas donated a combined total of $5.9 million to get two initiatives on the ballot, including Prop. 6.

Numerous organizations and officials have come out to officially oppose Prop. 6, including the Children’s Defense Fund, NAACP, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers and Service Employees International Union, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Don Perata, Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker, California firefighters and the California Legislative Black Caucus, which has argued that the initiative would have an uneven negative impact on the black community.

Prop. 6 is a throwback to the “get tough on crime” glory days of mandatory minimum sentences, the myth of the juvenile super predator and the illinformed calls for the National Guard to patrol urban neighborhoods. The policies that grew out of this era cost billions to taxpayers but did not result in making a difference. New studies, evaluations and assessments have proven that draconian measures, while removing some violent individuals from society for a time, have caused more harm to neighborhoods than good. The benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Prop. 6 may touch an emotional chord with those who rightfully want an immediate impact on crime, but the price tag is far too large, the outdated tactics are ineffective and the initiative’s proponents are insincere. California voters should reject Proposition 6.

Originally published Aug. 20-26, 2008