How proposition 6 lost

Well, I actually don’t know.

In all honesty, the no on prop 6 campaign had a lot more money and was backed by almost every county police department. The no on 6 campaign had more campaign experience (such as passing Jessica’s Law and the three strikes and your out law). Ultimately, thought, these advantages did not matter enough to pass the proposition.

When looking at the La Times election results map, the entire states is orange. This means that the majority of every single county in California voted No on proposition 6.

What does this mean? It means that nothing will change for police and law enforcement officers. It means that money will not be taken from other programs to fund what prop 6 anticipated. Ultimately, it prevents more money from targeting some people over others, as well as squeezing out money that California does not have anyway.

The No on 6 campaign did not hold the rallies that the Yes on 6 had. They did not give the many speeches across California the Yes on 6 were able to do, and ultimately, it came down to smaller groups, like Homeboy Industries and father Gregory Boyle.

Undoubtedly, the radio commercials that intensified two weeks before the election clearly stated the nature of the proposition, but it’s interesting to note that the same could be said about the Yes on 6 campaign.

Because there are not, still, any real reports on this low-key proposition (in comparison to others, at least) it is my assumption that this was due to the fact that commercials and the proposition itself had the 1 billion dollar tag attached that scared many from voting in favor. The economic hardship that hit California ultimately contributed to the loss of prop 6.

I could not be more pleased with the voters of California, in terms of this proposition, and the rightful decision that was made.

Why No on 6 campaign is deceptive.... and smart

No Proposition 6 has invested in a lot (of the little) money it has on radio ads attacking proposition 6 as a last push before the election.
To hear the ad, please visit this site: http://www.votenoprop6.com/video/No69_1_BudgetCrisis.mp3

Basically the thirty second ad, which is being played across California, plays on the very brittle economic sentiment widespread in California right now. The economic failures in the U.S. have been no more evident than in California, who has, and is, experiencing a very unstable moment.

Both campaigns are very aware of the fact that the proposition would target people of color in specific areas of the country. It would seem as though the No on 6 campaign could easily negatively frame this proposition as an unjust measure that would target some over others, thus, unfairly creating a law that contradicted a democratic principle of being equal under the law. However, instead of making this an issue about race and poverty, instead the ad and the campaign are banking on the economy. Genius!

Instead of making this a campaign of social inequality, which does not ring well with everyone, the No on 6 campaign can safely tap into the issue of the economy. The ad states that the proposition would “Spend billions on tax payers dollars more a year,” which is not true. The proposition would definitely increase funding for prevention, intervention and police staffing, in addition to funding unforeseeable costs (such as a larger number of incarceration rates), but not by the many billions stated here.

The world “billion” was used three times, that is, once every ten seconds. Indeed, they distort the truth a couple times, however, the pitch is marvelous and the twisted truth becomes secondary to an oblivious audience. Though they should quickly dispel the myth that California is on the brink of chaos, by utilizing the economic crisis (due to the fact that it is the number one issue this presidential election), the ads should do quite well.

How Prop 6 can win

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, Proposition 6 has not received as much attention as other proposition. Though the proposition would mean significant changes, it has not received much attention. As much as I have searched, I have not found polls predicting the outcome of prop 6.

What I did find were radio campaign ads! The most effective way of reaching voters would be to invest heavily on TV ads, unfortunately, neither side has that kind of money, nor the same amount of support as other campaigns.

The biggest beneficiaries of the prop would be the police department, who would be heavily funded to enforce new tasks. Therefore, it is not surprising that they launched a heavy radio campaign in favor of the Safe Neighborhood Act.

To hear the ad, please visit: http://www.lapd.com/news/pr/lappl_launces_radio_ad_campaign_in_support_of_proposition_6/

Once, there, scroll down, and right beneath the subtitle “TRANSCRIPT OF RADIO AD LAPPL, the audio strip appears. Click on it!
First of all, the voice in the audio is very intimidating and authoritative. The sound of the ad is very persuasive and does instill a little bit of fear. This ad sells, and it basically outlines pretty good-sounding measures that will, according to the ad, “increase safety” and adapt “more effective and accountable intervention programs.”

What was also effective about this proposition is that it omitted the fact that fourteen year olds would be convicted as adults in certain felonies. This, of course, is due to the fact that incarcerating youth is not viewed as a favorable and progressive way of running California. This would not their best selling point, and it would be foolish for them to inculcate that image in a thirty second ad without the time to justify this facet of the prop.

What I also notice, is that not even the campaign itself addresses this part of the proposition. The modestobee.com website posted a video of a rally the yes on 6 campaign had: http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/457130.html
Not even at their rallies is this issue addressed. Instead, some of the rally speakers are very clever and again attempt to scare the audience into voting for this proposition. An example of this is when Stanislaus County district Attorney, Birgit Fladager states that “gang crime continues to skyrocket in California.” This is clearly an exaggeration of crime in California. Again, crime rate is not at an unprecedented level in history, but the thought of it sure is effective for the passage of the Act.

In another example, in this same video, is Stanislaus County Chief Probation Officer Jerry Powers, who states: that the registered gang member sin San Diego is “a statistic that should scare the hell out of you.” Obviously, this was intended to “show” that California had no idea of what it is doing to combat crime.

Without the privilege of analyzing data on the effectiveness of the ad and the rally message, it appears as though this proposition will pass if it is able to spread enough fear and doubt about the current criminal laws. With the current budget crisis, informed voters at lease, will not be very willing to deprive other social services of money. However, by effectively framing the prop, it could pass. If you do not believe me, think back to the little bill our president passed after the attacks in 2001, and think why it was able to overwhelmingly pass in Congress.

What I think would occur if this proposition is passed

Let’s get specific on proposition 6. How exactly would proposition reduce gang-related crime? The major changes the proposition will have on the criminal justice system? Some of these modifications I have already discussed in detail, such as criminal background checks for public housing residents, eliminating bail for undocumented persons and try youth as young as 14 in an adult court for certain crimes.

What proposition 6 will also induce “gang injunction procedures” which gives law enforcement the right to “bring lawsuits against members of street gangs” or to charge someone before they actually commit a crime in order to prevent the crime from happening. So if someone if is identified as a gang member, they could be held responsible for a crime that actually did not occur This is really making me laugh right now, it shouldn’t because it is a very harmful policy that grants law enforcement a significant amount of power.

It makes sense that if someone is already identified as a gang member, then people might support this facet of the proposition. However, California’s databases are not accurate and do not document gang members in California. It is so bad that Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated that “this database cannot and should not be used, in California or elsewhere, to decide whether or not a person is dangerous or should be detained” (San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.votenoprop6.com/nam_082108.html).

The proposition requires the modification of these databases, though defining a persona s a gang member could be dangerous and inaccurate. Since sentencing would be harsher for known gang members, many who are labeled as such, but no longer affiliate as a member could be caught in a gang injunction or tried harsher than the law finds fair.

It is interesting to note that this database would be updated by requiring gang members themselves to register as such. I do not believe this is very likely, and it seems pretty ridiculous to expect this to actually take place. Basically, the data bases wouldn’t change too much, and California law enforcement would operate in a very interesting way.

What I have not seen discussed, is the problems that will arise between police officers and targeted communities. The prop clearly aims to single out ethnic minority youth in inner cities. A harsh and possibly unfair attack on individuals would not go by well, I assume of course. The solution of the proposition almost seeks to hunt down and lock up gang members (and non-gang members) in such a way that would inevitably create animosity between the two societies.

California needs to address crime, just not in a way that will possibly endanger others in the process. To further instigate a real shitty relationship between officers and perceived gang members is not a very intelligent way of preventing gang violence. To alienate and hunt a people does not make them very happy, and does not prevent them from further committing crimes (the discrimination just pisses them off).

California General Election
Prop 6 POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop6-analysis.htm

Chart and video of California financial deficit

In order to better understand the way Califonia spends money, the chart below breaks down where money has gone and will go this year.

Allocation of funds in California





Protecting California Taxpayers
Assembly Republicans Are Fighting
For A Responsible State Budget



UCLA Professor Daniel J.B. Mitchell traces California’s financial deficit back to the 1970s. Explains why the terminology is off and misleads citizens into believing the budget has been fine. States (in 2006) that California needs to fix its structural deficit, which means that economic growth alone would not fix the economic situation (must REDUCE spending and RAISE taxes).

California Budget Crisis, and why it is significant to proposition 6

California is in a budget crisis. A couple years ago California faced a rough economic patch with the fail of the dot.com. The economic hardships were “fixed” by borrowing and cutting social programs, which have only extended with the rise of foreclosed homes.

California deficit is somewhere between $16 billion and $18 billion. Money that California does not have. In fact, California Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the Treasurer Secretary, Henry Paulsen, asks for $7 billion to meet the state needs for this month.

In the October 2nd letter, the Governor stated that
“The credit crisis has frozen investment and commerce, forcing businesses and families to stop purchasing goods and services. This has resulted in tens of thousands of lost jobs and billions of dollars in lost tax revenue to the state.”

California is already struggling to meet the responsibilities it already has, and proposition 6 (and 9) would further drown California its state debt. The issue is not solely that California has a debt, but also that on October 2, 2008 (the date of the letter), California did not have enough money to fund the services it already has in place.

Proposition 6 does not raise taxes, instead, money needed will be taken from the state’s general fund. This money would otherwise fun schools and social services that are financially struggling as of right now.

This election will decide on some very important propositions that may further drive California into a greater financial crisis. If voters choose to believe that the Safe Neighborhood Act will truly reduce gang related crimes, then voters must also analyze the significance of this proposition (as well as others, of course) to California’s financial crisis.

This may seem as a crude alternative, but it is also a very practical one. The question becomes, is this what California needs right now? Is this the best way to handle the current crisis? Now, this proposition becomes an issue of crime as well as an issue of fiscal responsibility.


CBS Evening News: On California Financial Crisis


Watch CBS Videos Online

"With California expecting to run out of cash by Oct. 28th, Gov. Schwarzenegger has sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson explaining that the state may need $7 billion bailout. Ben Tracy reports."



Indy Bay January 5, 2008
California prepares massive cuts in response to budget crisis and economic woes
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/05/18470174.php

Tracy Unified School District
http://www.tracy.k12.ca.us/cabudgetcrisis.htm

Office of the Governor
Press Release
Governor Schwarzenegger Sends Letter to U.S. Department of Treasury Regarding the National Financial Crisis’ Effect on California and Other States
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/10734/

Why Proposition 6 and 9 are linked

I do not wish to dwell too long on proposition 9 since it is not specifically the informational intent of this blog. However, it is evident that both propositions are quite similar in that they intend to keep prisoners in jail as long as possible.

Proposition 6 aims to extend the sentence for crimes such as adding five years for gang recruitment of minors and considering more violent crimes eligible for life in prison. Proposition 9 eliminates early release for prisoners, especially in county jails where this is more prominent. Jail time would also increase by allowing victims and the family of victims to participate in bail, sentencing and parole. Additionally, the safety of the victim would be considered in releasing the convicted person. Therefore, even though a person might have served their sentence, release would not certain.

Victims are entitled to guidance and participation in the judicial process. Victims are also entitled to restitution, as the prop proposes. However, though victims are given a greater role, the proposition extends their participation and reduces the defense of the convicted person. Victims have right, but perpetrators do so as well.

The following video claims that proposition 9 simply seeks to grant victims the same rights as the person convicted of the crime.



In the video, Harriet Salarno of Crime Victims United, claims that this proposition gives victims the same rights as perpetrators. While this proposition does give victims more rights, it gives them such rights that their unfair participation may infringe on the proper defense of the perpetrator.

Not only will their defense be restricted, but their parole hearings would be reduced and further apart. This proposition would take away the right of parolees to legal council which gives paroles a chance in a legal setting. Additionally, crime victims would have the constitutional right to not disclose confidential records to the defendant’s case and refuse to testify or provide evidence before the trial to the defendant’s case.

In all these changes, the “playing ground” as Salarno calls it, is not equal and does not grant both sides a fair way of pleading for their case. Proposition 9, in this case, does give victims more rights, but does not make the situation a more fair one.