Pubdate: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 Source: Fresno Bee, The (CA) Copyright: 2000 The Fresno Bee Contact: http://www.fresnobee.com/man/opinion/letters.html Website: http://www.fresnobee.com/ Forum: http://www.fresnobee.com/man/projects/webforums/opinion.html Author: Russell Clemings, The Fresno Bee, For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm SCHOOL BOND, DRUG TREATMENT WINS WILL BRING CHANGES Silicon Valley Advocate Of Voucher Proposition Rejected By Voters Says He Isn't Finished With The Issue. Two ballot initiatives that emerged from Tuesday's election could dramatically transform California's law enforcement and educational landscape. Proposition 36 promises fundamental changes in how California deals with nonviolent drug users. The measure requires that people convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses be placed on probation and sent to treatment rather than prison. It also appropriates $120 million a year to fund treatment programs. The other prominent winner, Proposition 39, reduces the threshold for a local school facilities bond issue from a two-thirds vote to 55%, while imposing oversight requirements and caps. A similar measure that would have reduced the threshold to a simple majority lost in the March primary. The two initiatives were among five approved by voters Tuesday. One of the three that didn't pass muster had the highest profile going into Election Day -- Proposition 38, the school voucher measure. More than seven in 10 of the state's ballots had "no" votes for Prop. 38, which would have given parents $4,000 per child in vouchers for private school tuition and other expenses. The final unofficial count -- with a 29% "yes" vote and a 71% "no" vote -- was a greater margin than for any other proposition on the ballot. "The voters saw it precisely for what it was -- a grab to subsidize people in private schools," said Fresno County Schools Superintendent Pete Mehas. "I am not philosophically opposed to vouchers, but this particular voucher initiative I was adamantly against." Prop. 36 won support from 61% of the state's voters. Its sponsor, the California Campaign for New Drug Policies, said locking up nonviolent drug users was too expensive and didn't offer the treatment they needed to stay out of jail. Opponents, including law enforcement agencies and well-known rehabilitation centers, said the measure wouldn't guarantee quality treatment for the estimated 37,000 people it would affect and would in essence legalize the drugs behind many crimes, endangering public safety. "We saw the voters were ready for a change in drug policy much more radical than the politicians were going to give them," said Dave Fratello, Yes on 36 campaign manager. "We tapped into public sentiment and harnessed it successfully." Prop. 39, the initiative that transforms school-bond votes, was approved by 53% of the state's voters. Mehas said he thought the initiative passed because of its oversight and cap safeguards and because voters saw a 55% vote as a "reasonable compromise" between a simple majority and the two-thirds requirement. For the most part, San Joaquin Valley results resembled the statewide numbers on the two education initiatives, but Valley voters were less supportive of the drug-treatment measure. Fresno County's voters gave a 53% "yes" vote to Prop. 39, a 69% "no" vote to the Prop. 38 school vouchers initiative and a 53% "no" vote to Prop. 36 on drug treatment. In Tulare County, the vote was 54% "no" on Prop. 39, 68% "no" on Prop. 38 and 56% "no" on Prop. 36. Madera County voters rejected all three measures, casting 57% of their votes against Prop. 39, 63% against Prop. 38 and 55% against Prop. 36. The California Teachers Association and other public education groups fought Prop. 38 and backed Prop. 39 with campaigns that totaled more than $50 million. Gov. Davis and most of the state's education establishment led the Prop. 38 opposition. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who spent at least $23 million of his own money on the pro-38 effort, indicated that he wasn't finished with the issue. "This is decades of bureaucracy that's been built up. It was unlikely we would be able to vaporize it in one fell swoop," he said. Other propositions decided Tuesday mean California won't create limits on fees imposed on oil and alcohol companies, but will give private firms more of a crack at state contracts and enact campaign finance reform decried as a sham by many reformers. Proposition 32 passed easily. Authorizing a $500 million bond issue to replenish a state fund for the Cal-Vet program, which provides home and farm loans to veterans, it drew almost 67% of the vote statewide. Proposition 33 would have allowed members of the Legislature to join the state Public Employees' Retirement System. It was rejected by 61% of California voters. Proposition 34, a campaign finance initiative, repeals limits on contributions and voluntary spending limits of Proposition 208, which was approved by voters in 1996 but hasn't been implemented because of a court challenge, and replaces the limits with higher limits. It was approved by 60% of the state's voters. Proposition 35, which passed by a 55% margin, would allow the state to use private contractors for engineering and architectural services in public works projects, instead of being limited to using its own employees in most circumstances. Proposition 37 failed on a "no" vote of 52%. It would have instituted a two-thirds vote requirement for fees levied "to monitor, study or mitigate the societal or economic effects of an activity, and which impose no significant regulatory obligation" on the person or business paying the fee. The Associated Press contributed to this report. The reporter can be reached at or 441-6371. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D