California Proposition 19, Increased Criminal Punishment for Murder of Police Officer Measure (March 2000)
| California Proposition 19 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date March 7, 2000 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 19 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported requiring longer prison sentences for persons convicted of second-degree murder of a police officer working for the California State University system or and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District, which would make the criminal punishment consistent with the statewide policy for the murder of other police officers. |
A "no" vote opposed requiring longer prison sentences for persons convicted of second-degree murder of a police officer working for the California State University system or and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 19 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,126,737 | 73.58% | ||
| No | 1,840,850 | 26.42% | ||
-
- Results are officially certified.
- Source
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 19 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Existing law provides that the punishment for the murder in the second degree of specified peace officers is life without the possibility of parole if the crime occurs while the officer is on duty and aggravating factors are present. This measure specifies these enhanced sentence provisions would also apply when the victim is a peace officer employed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District or the California State University System | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 19. That estimate was:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 19 were submitted by Richard Rainey, State Senator, 7th Senatorial District, and Thomas M. Blalock, vice president, BART Board of Directors:[1]
| “ |
In 1998 the voters of California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 222 which enhanced criminal sentences for persons convicted of murdering police officers under specified circumstances. In approving this proposition, by a vote of 77% in favor to 23% opposed, the citizens of California recognized that police officers face day-to-day hazards in protecting us against harm and enforcing the law that make them vulnerable to serious injury and death. Existing law acknowledges these dangers by providing increased protections against the murder of police officers. Later in 1998, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 1690 which amends this initiative statute, subject to voter approval, to ensure that these same protections are applied to police officers of the California State University (CSU) and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The legislature recognized that the officers of these full-service police departments handle the same types and variety of criminal investigations—from petty theft to murder—as their city, county and state counterparts, and as such, assume the same daily life and death risks. The Senate passed Senate Bill 1690 on a vote of 36–0, the Assembly voted 70–3 in favor of the proposal, and the Governor promptly signed the bill into law. Proposition 19 asks the voters of California to approve this legislative action which would provide the same protection against the murder of CSU and BART police, as municipal police, county sheriffs and the police of the University of California currently enjoy.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 19 were submitted by Gail K. Lightfoot, past chair, Libertarian Party of California; Ted Brown, Insurance Adjuster/Investigator; and Larry Hines, legal Secretary:[1]
| “ |
California, 1885: The Sheriff says, 'OK, men, let’s get the posse together and ride out of town. There are two gunslingers hiding out in the desert and we’re going to bring them in.' California, 2000: The BART train officer says, 'OK, train riders, you’re now a posse. If you don’t help me capture the crazed gunman in the next car, I can arrest YOU and have you fined $1000!' We thought that posses went out a hundred years ago. But Proposition 19 will expand the power of government so that police on BART trains and at college campuses can force people to help capture criminals—without arms, training or pay. Don’t want to help? Well, you could be fined $1000! Most of Proposition 19 is reasonable. Indeed, BART police, University of California police and California State University police should be treated the same as other police officers. But some existing police powers should be ended rather than extended. There’s nothing wrong with a voluntary posse. An officer can ask for help, and should do so if he needs it. But to force a random citizen to help with possibly dangerous police work is downright crazy. In the Wild West days, most men carried firearms and knew how to use them. So when the sheriff asked for volunteers, he could be sure the men were able to help. Now it’s policy for local sheriffs and police chiefs to refuse to issue permits for concealed weapons—except for prominent, politically well-connected individuals. Any citizen who is not a violent felon or a mental patient should be issued a permit. We all have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Proposition 19 also gives off-duty and retired BART and university police the right to carry concealed weapons. This is fine. But why not recognize this right for the rest of us as well? Shouldn’t teachers, grocery clerks, dentists and plumbers have the same right and ability to defend themselves? Please vote NO on Proposition 19[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
Proposition 19 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Senate Bill 1690 of the 1997-98 Regular Session (Chapter 760, Statutes of 1998).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 70 | 3 |
| Senate | 36 | 0 |
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 19
- Official declaration of the March 7, 2000 vote
- Smart Voter on Proposition 19
- Cal Voter on Prop 19
- Top Ten contributors
Footnotes
