Toxics Measure Breezes; AIDS Initiative Fails

California voters reacted to bad news about tainted drinking water by strongly approving Tuesday a tough new law against toxic polluters, but they soundly rejected an AIDS control measure promoted by political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.

Proposition 65, the anti-toxics measure, is regarded by sponsors and foes alike as a harbinger of a new movement in support of hard-nosed laws to guard against spoilage of the environment.

It passed in all areas of the state, including the agricultural Central Valley. Both sides have predicted that similar state laws might now begin to sweep the country in the same populist fashion as the property-tax revolt that grew out of California in 1978.

“I think it will have national repercussions, no doubt about it,” said Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), whose political group, Campaign California, was the biggest financial contributor to the Yes on 65 effort. “It will now set the standard for toxic initiatives in the country.”

However, the campaign manager for the business and oil interests that opposed the measure predicted such laws will face a tough fight in other states. “The fact . . . that we have pointed out its flaws (means that) the measures they will introduce in other states will bear no resemblance to what they did in California,” said Michael Gagan.

The LaRouche-inspired AIDS measure, Proposition 64, was defeated by a 2-1 margin on the strength of a massive show of opposition by medical experts on AIDS. They said the LaRouche plan to force state officials to collect the names of AIDS carriers and patients and remove them from some jobs would devastate efforts to slow the spread of the fatal disease.

“It’s a victory for public health in California,” state health Director Kenneth Kizer said at the No on 64 celebration at the Hollywood Palladium. “It’s a triumph, very simply, for good over evil.”

Victory for Gays

Gays argued strongly for defeat of the measure, which was viewed by some as a veiled attack on equal rights for homosexuals. Campaign strategist David Mixner, a gay activist who has lost many friends to AIDS, said he hopes the resounding defeat will bring an end to such measures.

“To those good and decent people of California, we say thank you,” Mixner said. “I want every politician across the land to hear this message.”

Khushro Ghandhi, the LaRouche follower who sponsored the initiative, said the extremist’s forces will remain active, but he would not give details. “We’re always full of surprises,” he said.

Voters also delivered a strong message by passing Proposition 63, which declares English as the official language of California, in a largely symbolic reaction to the spread of Spanish and other foreign languages in the state.

Former GOP Sen. S.I. Hayakawa, a leading sponsor, said that “the importance (of Proposition 63) is to prevent the adoption of a second official language some time in the future.” He added that the victory would offer a lift to efforts to pass a federal constitutional amendment declaring English the nation’s official language.

Pay Limit Defeated

In voting on another major initiative, voters up and down the state rejected Proposition 61, which would have slashed the pay of top government officials--both elected and professional.

Public officials, many of whom had threatened to retire if the measure passed, said they were gratified. But sponsor Paul Gann blamed the loss on a controversial projection that passage of Proposition 61 could cost taxpayers $7 billion in a one-time pay-out of vacation and sick pay.

“We will rewrite it, of course,” Gann said. “We’ll be back.”

The other measures on the state ballot were all headed to victory:

- Proposition 53, which would authorize $800 million in bonds for new schools and campus expansion.

- Proposition 54, which would authorize $500 million in prison construction bonds.

- Proposition 55, which would authorize $100 million in bonds to help water districts clean up water supplies.

- Proposition 56, which would authorize $400 million in bonds for university and college construction.

- Proposition 57, which would limit pension increases for 18 former state officials.

- Proposition 58, which would allow parents to transfer their residence to children without a reassessment for tax purposes.

- Proposition 59, which would make it a constitutional requirement that district attorneys be elected.

- Proposition 60, which would give a property tax break to senior citizens who move.

- Proposition 62, written by the late Howard Jarvis, which would add new restrictions, including a majority vote of the people, before local government could raise business, utility and other local taxes.

The anti-toxics measure, Proposition 65, took aim at chemicals believed to cause cancer and birth defects--requiring businesses to warn people of exposure to the substances and putting tough limits on the amounts released into drinking water supplies. Under the measure, any citizen could file suit against violators and, if successful, collect 25% of fines ranging up to $2,500 a day.

Point of Contention

But government agencies and water districts were exempted--a key point of contention in the campaign. The initiative would also sharply increase fines for violations of current laws that regulate the disposal of toxic wastes.

It would be up to the governor and his scientific experts to develop a list of the affected chemicals. But at a minimum, the substances would have to include those identified as causing cancer by scientific panels created by the National Toxicology Program and the International Assn. for Research on Cancer.

Backed by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund, the measure was caught up in the partisan races for governor and U.S. Senate.

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, whose chief deputy helped write the initiative, figured the measure would prove popular with voters and tried to link it closely in their minds with Bradley’s campaign for governor.

Gov. George Deukmejian would have no part of it, denouncing the measure as a campaign ploy by Bradley and attacking the mayor’s record on the environment.

The partisan split was evident also in the U.S. Senate race, where incumbent Democrat Alan Cranston surrounded himself with celebrities and environmentalists who backed Proposition 65 while his Republican opponent, Ed Zschau, came out against the measure.

Help From Hollywood

Many Hollywood celebrities adopted Proposition 65 as their political passion of the year, going on the stump to campaign for the measure across the state.

Opponents, who outspent proponents by more than $2.5 million, were led by oil and chemical companies, agribusiness and other large industrial concerns that said the measure’s controls would prove too costly. They also objected to exemptions for government polluters.

Proposition 64, the LaRouche-sponsored AIDS measure, was being closely watched around the country as an indicator of voter backlash against medical leaders over AIDS, the lethal acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

The measure was widely reviled in the medical community as an ill-informed, hysterical reaction to the AIDS epidemic. Television commercials aired by opponents focused on the medical angle and ignored the proposition’s genesis as a project of LaRouche’s Virginia-based political organizations.

Problems for LaRouche

LaRouche has called AIDS the political issue that will energize his latest candidacy for President. But his empire has been riddled with legal problems, including the recent indictment of five organizations and 10 aides on federal conspiracy and fraud charges and the freezing of his group’s California bank accounts in connection with a suit charging that LaRouche’s groups harass the elderly into giving large sums of money.

The English-only measure, Proposition 63, ran far ahead in pre-election polls despite the opposition of Deukmejian and other conservatives, including Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

The full impact of passage is unclear, but government officials say they fear a rash of lawsuits by citizens seeking to enforce the declaration of English as the state’s official language.

Proposition 61, the measure to limit government salaries and contracts, was the most prominent of several ballot measures that sought to cut the size and cost of government.

It sought to limit the governor’s salary to $80,000, reduce all other judicial and government salaries to a maximum of $64,000, prohibit public employees from carrying over vacation and sick-day benefits from year to year, and limit the value of contracts for various public services.