California Proposition 66 (2004)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 66 was on the November 2004 ballot in California as an initiated state statute where it narrowly lost. Prop. 66, had it passed, would have softened and repealed some of the provisions of Proposition 184, the Three Strikes initiative that California voters approved with 72% of the vote in 1994.
The campaign opposing Prop. 66 made a near-miraculous comeback in the three weeks leading up to the November election, growing by nearly 30 points in the last two weeks. The anti-campaign was led by Arnold Schwarzenegger and communications-billionaire Henry Nicholas. $71,335 was spent to defeat Prop. 66, while about $5 million was spent to pass it.
Proposition 66 would have amended the Three Strikes Law to allow a life sentence only if a person is convicted of a third felony that is violent or serious. It would have removed eight crimes from the violent or serious category and toughened sentences for some crimes against children.
Ballot language
The language on the ballot said, "Amends "Three Strikes" law to require increased sentences only when current conviction is for specified violent and/or serious felony. Redefines violent and serious felonies. Only prior convictions for specified violent and/or serious felonies, brought and tried separately, would qualify for second and third "strike" sentence increases. Allows conditional re-sentencing of persons with sentences increased under "Three Strikes" law if previous sentencing offenses, resulting in the currently charged felony/felonies, would no longer qualify as violent and/or serious felonies. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
Fiscal impact
The estimated fiscal impact of the measure, provided by the state government, was:
- Net state savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars initially, increasing to several hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system.
- Increased county costs of potentially more than ten million dollars annually for jail and court-related costs.
Election results
| Proposition 66 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No
| 6,238,060 | 52.7% | ||
| Yes | 5,604,060 | 47.3% | ||
| Total votes | 11,842,120 | 100.00% | ||
| Voter turnout | NK% | |||
Donors to pass Prop. 66
Campaign spending on Proposition 66 was lopsided, with the "Yes on 66" committee spending a little over $5 million and the "No on 66" committee spending $71,000, a ratio of 71 to 1.[1]
Donors supporting the passage of Prop 66 included Jerry Keenan, who gave a little over $2.8 million, and George Soros, John Sperling and Peter Lewis, each of whom gave $500,000.
In May 2009, Soros agreed to pay $8,000 in fines to the Fair Political Practices Commission because he did not properly disclose $500,000 in contributions he made to Proposition 66.[2]
External links
- Official Voter Guide to Proposition 66
- Election results for Proposition 66
- Was "No on 66" campaign fueled by illegal substances?
- Expenditures on Prop. 66
- November 2004 election results from the California Secretary of State
- LAO analysis of Proposition 66
- Guide to Proposition 66 from the California Voter Foundation
- Analysis of Proposition 66 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Archived copy of the "Yes on 66" campaign website
- Archived copy of the "No on 66" campaign website
References
- ↑ Proposition 66 campaign donations
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "George Soros agrees to $8,000 fine for 2004 California election rules violation", May 11, 2009
