Kathy
11-09-2004, 10:22 PM
We'll be back on '3 strikes' law change
By Geri Silva
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting the credit for defeating Proposition 66, and he deserves it. As nearly everyone in California now knows, voters favored the measure, which would have amended the state's "three strikes, you're out" law, until the very last days of the campaign. And while a last-minute ad blitz led to the proposition's defeat, Californians still want "three strikes" changed.
We've known that for years. We first did public opinion polling more than two years ago and discovered that the majority of Californians favored a "three strikes" law that did not mete out life sentences for petty, nonviolent offenses. But the Legislature refused to budge, so an initiative was the only way to push reform.
In June, Proposition 66 qualified, and our opponents' approach to defeating it quickly became clear. Proposition 66 was drafted to apply to the approximately 4,000 nonviolent third-strikers in California prisons, but opponents instantly inflated the number to 26,000, a number that suggested that the initiative would also apply to people incarcerated with second-strike convictions.
Over the summer, the Legislative Analyst's Office reviewed the language of the initiative and indicated to us that, in its estimation, the initiative applied only to third-strikers. I remember a strategy session shortly before the LAO's official determination in which I asked whether the opposition would stop using the 26,000 number if the LAO determined that Proposition 66 would apply only to third-strikers. The campaign experts laughed at my naivete.
That turned out to be only the first of several deceptions promulgated by opponents.
The no-on-66 campaign also immediately began claiming that the initiative would "release" offenders, talking about Proposition 66 as if it were a "get out of jail free" card.
Despite this, we were hopeful.
Our own polls as well as a Field Poll released early in the summer suggested that we had enormous support _ even greater than the support we'd found two years ago. For me personally _ after a decade of taking phone calls from strikers' family members telling me in voices often faltering with despair that they had voted for "three strikes" and couldn't believe their son or brother or father had just received a life sentence for stealing a three-pack of T-shirts, or a $30 toolbox, or being a lookout to a drug deal _ it seemed as if the moment for reform had finally arrived.
Of course, our research also told us where we were weak.
We knew the only way opponents could defeat us was to scare the daylights out of voters. Opponents clearly knew it, too, so they dug up individuals who had committed heinous crimes, served their time and were released, then picked up again for a petty offense and reincarcerated for life under "three strikes." Never mind that the California criminal code provides many ways to keep offenders who continue to pose a risk to society behind bars.
Still, their best efforts, even their best deceptions, weren't cutting meaningfully into our numbers until 10 days ago. Then, at the final hour, the governor stepped in with an estimated $4 million in ads and robo-calls in the final week.
We're still not sure why Schwarzenegger got involved. His involvement to defeat Proposition 66 does no credit to his campaign promises of fiscal responsibility or to bring the California Department of Corrections under control. And his willingness to ape the campaign's deceptions in his 15-second spot tarnishes his promise last year to tell Californians the truth.
Two lessons emerge from Proposition 66: The first _ that the governor wields enormous power over the electorate and the initiative process _ is widely acknowledged. The second, easy-to-miss lesson in the wake of Proposition 66's defeat is that Californians want a "three strikes" law that doesn't lock up petty offenders for life.
Until that change in the law is made, our message is a one-liner familiar to the governor: We'll be back.
Geri Silva is the founder and executive director of Families to Amend California's Three Strikes. The organization's Web site is www.facts1.com
By Geri Silva
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting the credit for defeating Proposition 66, and he deserves it. As nearly everyone in California now knows, voters favored the measure, which would have amended the state's "three strikes, you're out" law, until the very last days of the campaign. And while a last-minute ad blitz led to the proposition's defeat, Californians still want "three strikes" changed.
We've known that for years. We first did public opinion polling more than two years ago and discovered that the majority of Californians favored a "three strikes" law that did not mete out life sentences for petty, nonviolent offenses. But the Legislature refused to budge, so an initiative was the only way to push reform.
In June, Proposition 66 qualified, and our opponents' approach to defeating it quickly became clear. Proposition 66 was drafted to apply to the approximately 4,000 nonviolent third-strikers in California prisons, but opponents instantly inflated the number to 26,000, a number that suggested that the initiative would also apply to people incarcerated with second-strike convictions.
Over the summer, the Legislative Analyst's Office reviewed the language of the initiative and indicated to us that, in its estimation, the initiative applied only to third-strikers. I remember a strategy session shortly before the LAO's official determination in which I asked whether the opposition would stop using the 26,000 number if the LAO determined that Proposition 66 would apply only to third-strikers. The campaign experts laughed at my naivete.
That turned out to be only the first of several deceptions promulgated by opponents.
The no-on-66 campaign also immediately began claiming that the initiative would "release" offenders, talking about Proposition 66 as if it were a "get out of jail free" card.
Despite this, we were hopeful.
Our own polls as well as a Field Poll released early in the summer suggested that we had enormous support _ even greater than the support we'd found two years ago. For me personally _ after a decade of taking phone calls from strikers' family members telling me in voices often faltering with despair that they had voted for "three strikes" and couldn't believe their son or brother or father had just received a life sentence for stealing a three-pack of T-shirts, or a $30 toolbox, or being a lookout to a drug deal _ it seemed as if the moment for reform had finally arrived.
Of course, our research also told us where we were weak.
We knew the only way opponents could defeat us was to scare the daylights out of voters. Opponents clearly knew it, too, so they dug up individuals who had committed heinous crimes, served their time and were released, then picked up again for a petty offense and reincarcerated for life under "three strikes." Never mind that the California criminal code provides many ways to keep offenders who continue to pose a risk to society behind bars.
Still, their best efforts, even their best deceptions, weren't cutting meaningfully into our numbers until 10 days ago. Then, at the final hour, the governor stepped in with an estimated $4 million in ads and robo-calls in the final week.
We're still not sure why Schwarzenegger got involved. His involvement to defeat Proposition 66 does no credit to his campaign promises of fiscal responsibility or to bring the California Department of Corrections under control. And his willingness to ape the campaign's deceptions in his 15-second spot tarnishes his promise last year to tell Californians the truth.
Two lessons emerge from Proposition 66: The first _ that the governor wields enormous power over the electorate and the initiative process _ is widely acknowledged. The second, easy-to-miss lesson in the wake of Proposition 66's defeat is that Californians want a "three strikes" law that doesn't lock up petty offenders for life.
Until that change in the law is made, our message is a one-liner familiar to the governor: We'll be back.
Geri Silva is the founder and executive director of Families to Amend California's Three Strikes. The organization's Web site is www.facts1.com