Pubdate: Wed, 08 Nov 2000
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: (213) 237-7679
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/discuss/
Author: Jenifer Warren, Times Staff Writer
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items
http://mapinc.org/prop36.htm

VOTE BACKING TREATMENT FOR DRUG OFFENSES

Campaign Funding Limits Are Winning. Retirement Benefits For 
Legislators Are Headed For Defeat.

A ballot measure requiring California to treat nonviolent drug 
offenders as sick rather than criminally culpable appeared headed for 
victory Tuesday, suggesting that discontent with the nation's drug 
war is beginning to reshape criminal justice policy.

Passage of Proposition 36 would make California the second state in 
which voters have demanded government-funded treatment, rather than 
imprisonment, for low-level drug criminals.

"People finally understand that addiction is a disease--a treatable 
disease--and that the answer to this epidemic is not locking addicts 
up," said Gretchen Burns Bergman, chairwoman of the Yes on 36 
campaign and mother of a son incarcerated three times for drug 
offenses.

Conceding defeat, foes of the measure noted that they were outspent 9 
to 1 by its backers, a gap that severely limited the reach of the 
opposition campaign.

"The devil was in the details of Proposition 36, and we just didn't 
have the resources to educate the voters," said Larry Brown of the 
California District Attorneys Assn.

Barring a late-night surprise, Proposition 36 was poised to become 
the second drug-related ballot measure opposed by law enforcement but 
embraced by California voters, who endorsed use of marijuana for 
medical reasons in 1996.

On other statewide measures Tuesday, voters were heartily favoring a 
plan that sought to place modest limits on campaign funding but 
threatened to gut a much tougher political reform law that has been 
tied up in the courts.

A measure to give lawmakers state-funded retirement benefits was 
headed for defeat, while another seeking to make it harder to impose 
regulatory fees on industry was trailing.

Proposition 36 asked Californians to launch a wholesale shift in the 
way the courts handle nonviolent drug offenders. Modeled after a 
program adopted by Arizona voters in 1996, the measure proposed 
spending $120 million a year to treat, instead of incarcerate, those 
arrested for drug possession and ex-convicts who violate parole by 
using narcotics.

Supporters built their campaign on polls revealing voter 
disillusionment with the nation's 20-year-old war on drugs and kept 
their message simple: Addiction, their ads argued, should be treated 
as a medical problem, not a criminal one.

Opponents had some heavy hitters on their side, among them Gov. Gray 
Davis, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and scores of drug court judges, who 
complained that the measure carried too few sanctions for offenders 
who relapse. Actor Martin Sheen cut TV ads against the initiative, 
and Betty Ford, namesake of one of the nation's most famous drug 
treatment clinics, fired off last-minute e-mails attacking it as "a 
giant step backward."

But the solid advantage in fund-raising went to Proposition 36 
supporters, thanks to three millionaire businessmen who have 
bankrolled drug policy initiatives across the country. With $2.8 
million to work with, backers were on TV far more frequently than 
foes, who raised about $440,000 and saw promises of big dollars from 
the state prison guards union evaporate.

With the exception of the big-bucks fight over school vouchers, the 
campaigns involving most of this year's other statewide initiatives 
were ho-hum affairs.

Proposition 34, the campaign finance measure, sought to impose limits 
on contributions and require candidates to report donations more 
frequently. It was written by legislative leaders and backed by 
organized labor and the Republican and Democratic parties--groups 
that opposed earlier reform proposals.

The opposition was led by the League of Women Voters and California 
Common Cause. They argued that the real issue Tuesday was not 
Proposition 34 but an earlier, much tougher initiative approved 
overwhelmingly in 1996. That stricter measure has been stalled in the 
courts, but it may be reinstated and could be nullified by 
Proposition 34, foes argued.

Another low-profile measure sought to make it easier for governments 
to contract out for engineering and design work for projects ranging 
from schools to highways. Proposition 35, put on the ballot by 
private engineering firms seeking a larger share of lucrative 
government business--such as the potential multibillion-dollar 
traffic relief plan proposed by Gov. Davis--was holding a modest 
lead, incomplete returns showed.

The union representing Caltrans engineers led the opposition, 
focusing television commercials on the fact that the measure does not 
require competitive bidding.

Proposition 37, placed on the ballot by tobacco, alcoholic beverage 
and oil interests, asked voters to redefine certain regulatory fees 
as taxes. A two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature or local 
electorate is required to approve taxes, whereas most fees can be 
imposed by a simple majority of the governing body.

Regulatory fees are intended to pay for the costs of adverse 
environmental or health consequences of a product. But Proposition 37 
sponsors called them hidden taxes that end up hitting consumers in 
the pocketbook. Foes, including conservationists and health 
activists, said the initiative would shield businesses from paying 
for their harmful activities and saddle average taxpayers with the 
costs.

Proposition 33 was the measure calling for reinstituting pension, 
health and other retirement benefits for state legislators. Voters 
stripped lawmakers of their publicly financed pensions in 1990, but 
legislators argued that it was unfair to deny retirement benefits to 
men and women who leave outside careers to serve in Sacramento.

Opponents said Proposition 33 represented an arrogant response to 
voters who abolished legislative pensions a decade ago, and warned of 
a return to an era of bloated legislative benefits. The campaign was 
a sleepy one, with supporters raising about $93,000 and no official 
group organized to oppose it.

Even quieter was the debate over Proposition 32, which asked voters 
to authorize the issuance of $500 million in bonds to continue 
financing low-interest home loans to about 2,500 military veterans. 
Incomplete returns showed two out of three state voters favored the 
bonds, which mostly benefit Vietnam veterans. They are repaid by the 
vets' mortgage payments and are not a direct cost to taxpayers.

Aside from the statewide propositions, California voters confronted a 
diverse array of regional issues, including about 50 growth-related 
measures and an effort to rein in the expansion of dot-coms.

* A measure in San Luis Obispo County sought to prohibit agricultural 
open space and rural residential land from being rezoned for 
development during the next 30 years without a countywide vote.

With all but a few precincts counted, returns showed Measure M losing 
after a contentious campaign that pitted ranchers, real estate 
businesses and developers against slow-growthers who say suburban 
sprawl is consuming their oak-studded valleys and hillsides.

Growth was also a hot issue in Sacramento County, where developer 
C.C. Myers seemed certain to fall short in his bid to rezone 2,000 
acres of grazing land and build a 3,000-home golf course development. 
In a blizzard of clever TV commercials, Myers portrayed his 
development as a godsend for seniors seeking housing. Foes, however, 
called it a millionaire's blatant end-run around the county's 
land-use planning process.

A few hours' drive south in Tracy, a Central Valley farm community 
discovered by Silicon Valley commuters, voters approved a proposal to 
slash the number of houses that can be built annually within city 
boundaries.

* In San Francisco, anxiety over the displacement of artists and 
nonprofit groups by the onslaught of big-budget dot-coms came to a 
head with votes on two competing growth-control measures.

The fate of Proposition L, which sought to ban large new office 
spaces in parts of the city experiencing an influx of high-tech 
firms, was uncertain late Tuesday. Proposition K, favored by Mayor 
Willie Brown and developers, was less restrictive, and going down to 
defeat.

* Before election day, San Diego voters seemed closely divided over 
two candidates vying to succeed two-term San Diego Mayor Susan 
Golding, but Superior Court Judge Dick Murphy ultimately claimed 
victory. Murphy, 57, and County Supervisor Ron Roberts, 58, spent 
much of the campaign debating the stalled project to build a downtown 
baseball stadium for the Padres and a controversial lease for 
Qualcomm Stadium that requires the city to reimburse the National 
Football League's Chargers for unsold seats.

Both Republicans and proteges of former Mayor Pete Wilson, the 
candidates agreed on most issues and shared a background as city 
councilmen in the 1980s. Early returns showed the race too close to 
call.

Fresno voters also were choosing a new mayor Tuesday, and unofficial 
results showed a TV star known as "Bubba" had triumphed in his bid to 
make the valley city only the second in California to have an actor 
as its mayor.

Alan Autry, who played the good-old-boy cop Lt. Bubba Skinner in the 
TV series "In the Heat of the Night," defeated Dan Whitehurst, 52, a 
former mayor who left office 15 years ago to pursue a fortune in the 
funeral business. Autry, 48, had voted only once in the past two 
decades--a vote cast for himself in the March primary--but he used 
his celebrity and lack of political experience to woo support.

* In Mendocino County, voters solidly endorsed a proposal to make 
their county the first place in the country to allow marijuana 
cultivation for personal use. Critics said Measure G, which would 
permit residents to grow up to 25 plants, was pointless because state 
and federal drug laws would render it moot. But backers called it an 
important protest statement against the multibillion-dollar war on 
drugs.

* Residents of Morro Bay, northwest of San Luis Obispo, decided they 
didn't want a say over any future expansion or replacement of a power 
plant whose three smokestacks dominate their coastline. Owners of the 
plant want to build a more efficient and powerful facility, would 
have been required to get local voter approval under Measure Q, but 
unofficial returns showed the measure lost Tuesday night.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe