California Proposition 6, Gang-Related Crimes, Law Enforcement Spending, and Parolee Caseload Initiative (2008)

California Proposition 6
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Law enforcement
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 6 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was defeated.

A "yes" voted supported this ballot measure to create a minimum funding requirement for certain law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, including police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, and probation offices; increase criminal penalties for gang participation and recruitment, possession and sale of methamphetamines, and others; and reduce the parolee caseload of parole agents.

A "no" voted opposed this ballot measure to create a minimum funding requirement for certain law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, including police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, and probation offices; increase criminal penalties for gang participation and recruitment, possession and sale of methamphetamines, and others; and reduce the parolee caseload of parole agents.

Overview

Proposition 6 would have made several changes to state law enforcement and criminal justice laws, including:

• set a minimum spending level for certain law enforcement and criminal justice programs, including including police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, and probation offices;

• increase penalties for crimes related to gang participation and recruitment, intimidation of individuals involved in court proceedings, possession and sale of methamphetamines, vehicle theft, firearms possession, and removing or disabling a GPS device;

• reduce the average parolee caseload of parole agents from 70 parolees per parole agent to 50 parolees;

• require the state to develop two databases related to gang information for law enforcement agencies;

• expand the list of crimes and circumstances in which juveniles could be tried as adults in criminal court;

• expand the list of circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible in court;

• allow counties with overcrowded jails to operate temporary jails and treatment facilities to house inmates; and

• prohibit a person charged with a violent or gang-related felony from being released on bail or recognizance pending trial if the person is illegally in the United States.

Election results

California Proposition 6
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,824,372	30.88%
No		8,559,647	69.12%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 6 was as follows:

“

Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index. Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life sentences. Increases penalties for violating a gang-related injunction and for felons carrying guns under certain conditions.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Net increase in state costs that are likely within a few years to exceed $500 million annually, primarily due to increasing state spending for various criminal justice programs to at least $965 million, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. These costs would increase by tens of millions of dollars annually in subsequent years. Potential one-time state capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $500 million due to increases in the prison population.

”

Support

The Committee to Take Back Our Neighborhoods led the campaign in support of Proposition 6.

Supporters

Officials

• State Sen. George Runner (R-17)

Organizations

• California State Sheriffs’ Association
• California Police Chiefs Association
• California District Attorneys Association
• Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
• Crime Victims United

Individuals

• Henry Nicholas

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ EVERY SHERIFF IN CALIFORNIA SUPPORTS THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT—PROPOSITION 6 Proposition 6 is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that will bring more cops and increased safety to our streets, and greater efficiency and accountability to public safety programs. Proposition 6 returns taxpayers’ money to local law enforcement without raising taxes. It creates a special oversight commission to guard and protect tax dollars from waste and abuse. The California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association, Crime Victims United, and organizations representing more than 45,000 law enforcement officers back Proposition 6 because it’s a balanced solution to California’s crime problem. CRIME, GANGS, AND VIOLENCE ARE TAKING OVER OUR STREETS Between 1999 and 2006, while the national homicide rate declined, California’s murder rate increased—accounting for nearly 500 more murders per year. In fact, California’s murder rate has become the highest among the nation’s five largest states. Gangs are a leading cause of California’s rising murder rate. According to the Attorney General, upwards of 420,000 gang members roam our streets. Convicted felons and gang members with fi rearms commit the majority of gun crimes, including the killing of peace officers. IT’S TIME TO FIGHT BACK Proposition 6 is a comprehensive plan that addresses crime and gang violence on many levels, including: • Prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants who are charged with violent or gang crimes. • Imposing a 10-year penalty increase on gang offenders who commit violent felonies. • Creating more effective and accountable intervention programs to stop young kids from joining gangs and ruining their lives. • Requiring convicted gang offenders to register with local law enforcement each year for five years following conviction or their release from custody. • Providing GPS tracking equipment for monitoring gang offenders, sex offenders, and violent offenders. • Increasing penalties for manufacture and sale of methamphetamine to the same level as those for cocaine. • Adding a 10-year sentence to dangerous felons who carry loaded or concealed fi rearms in public. • Increasing penalties for multiple acts of graffiti. CRIME VICTIMS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREE— YES ON PROPOSITION 6 “Seven months ago I lost my husband to gang violence. A sheriff’s deputy, he was shot while chasing a suspect. The person who murdered my husband was a 16-year-old gang member. “This tragedy demonstrates the need for prevention and intervention so at-risk children do not turn to gangs and crime. Proposition 6 will do just this and give law enforcement the tools they need to keep all Californians safe.” — Thanh Nguyen, widow of Deputy Sheriff Vu Nguyen “Proposition 6 is a comprehensive plan that will secure funding for law enforcement, stiffen penalties for the most dangerous criminals, and improve prevention programs.” — Robert Lopez, President, San Jose Police Offi cer Association “The Safe Neighborhoods Act gives us the tools we need to help keep at-risk kids out of gangs.” — Jerry Powers, President, Chief Probation Offi cers of California VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 6 Join victims’ rights advocates and law enforcement leaders in supporting Proposition 6. ”

Opposition

Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility led the campaign in support of Proposition 6.

Opponents

Parties

• California Democratic Party
• California Libertarian Party
• California Green Party

Governing Bodies

• Los Angeles City Council

Organizations

• California Professional Firefighters
• California Labor Federation
• California Teachers Association
• California Federation of Teachers
• SEIU California State Council
• California National Organization for Women
• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ This November’s ballot is fi lled with propositions that sound good on fi rst reading, but in reality will savage California’s economy without delivering what they promise. Prop. 6 is a good example. PROP. 6 REQUIRES MASSIVE NEW SPENDING As California faces the worst budget crisis in history, Prop. 6 worsens the crisis by spending almost a billion dollars each year on ineffective programs that aren’t proven to reduce crime. Programs that threaten funding for schools, foster care, after school programs, fi re protection, and effective public safety efforts. PROP. 6 INCREASES STATE SPENDING ON PRISONS AND THREATENS FUNDS FOR OTHER CRITICAL PROGRAMS Prop. 6 would require construction of new prison facilities; a cost which could exceed half a billion dollars. California already spends more than 4 times more per prisoner than per public school student. “Proposition 6 would spend billions to put children in jail and keep them there longer for ‘crimes’ like failing to update a current home address. More 14-year-old children would be tried as adults. Those billions could be spent on schools and children’s healthcare . . . programs proven to reduce crime.” — Marty Hittelman, President, California Federation of Teachers PROP. 6 WASTES MONEY ON INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY Prop. 6 spends a billion dollars each year on programs with no real oversight or accountability. These programs would be selected without a competitive process or cost-benefit analysis. The state would then have to automatically renew funding each year, whether or not the programs are working. Under Prop. 6, the largest increase in funding is for “Citizens Options for Public Safety,” a program reviewed by the state’s independent Legislative Analyst and found to have “no definable goals” and “no identifiable results.” Prop. 6 would waste billions on programs that are unproven. PROP. 6 DISRUPTS EXISTING CRIME PREVENTION EFFORTS The proponents argue that this raid on your tax dollars is needed to fight gangs. They ignore the fact that the Governor and Legislature have already taken fi rm steps to combat gangs and crime. Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger launched “CalGRIP,” directing state funds to law enforcement and community anti-gang programs throughout the state. CalGRIP applies a balanced approach, attacking gangs with prevention, intervention, suppression, and incarceration. Prop. 6 would completely disrupt the current progress being made in California. PROP. 6 WON’T INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY We agree that the state can and should do more to prevent crime and increase public safety. But that’s not what Prop. 6 does. Prop. 6 pours tax dollars into unproven programs with no real oversight or accountability, robbing effective anti-crime programs of funding. PROP. 6 WOULD THREATEN SCHOOL FUNDING Prop. 6 doesn’t pay for itself so there’ll be less money for schools, healthcare, and other vital programs. Visit www.votenoprop6.com to see a list of groups opposing Prop. 6, including former law enforcement officials, taxpayer and children’s groups, faith leaders, and civil rights groups. Prop. 6 is nothing more than a raid on the state treasury being marketed with public safety slogans. Vote No on Prop. 6! ”

Media editorials

Opposition

• Los Angeles Times
• Pasadena Star News
• New York Times

Path to the ballot

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.

Supporters turned in over 750,000 signatures on April 25 to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot. The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was conducted by National Petition Management, at a cost of $1.022 million.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• Drug crime policy on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• November 4, 2008, General Election Voter Guide