Van de Kamp Stands Fast Amid Furor : But D.A.s Aren’t Impressed by His Objections to Crime Initiative

Acting as though the governor’s election were next week instead of next year, Democratic Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp on Tuesday stood his ground with law enforcement officials in a furor over a proposed crime initiative that some fear would endanger a woman’s right to abortion in California.

In a speech here, Van de Kamp told angry district attorneys from around the state that he has done them a favor by objecting to language about privacy in the Crime Victims’ Justice Reform initiative, a measure that they created.

If the district attorneys do not take that language out, Van de Kamp predicted, the measure--which would speed up trials, among other things--will be rejected by the voters.

If they do satisfy his objection, he said, the voters will approve it. And to aid in the costly regathering of signatures to qualify the amended measure, Van de Kamp pledged a $25,000 contribution.

“Let’s stop the name calling,” Van de Kamp said in his address to the California District Attorneys Assn. “Let’s keep the abortion issue separate from criminal justice reform.”

That was not what the district attorneys wanted to hear. They and Van de Kamp’s possible gubernatorial opponent, Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, believe that the attorney general’s objections to their initiative are off base and politically motivated.

The district attorneys believe that the abortion issue is a guise for Van de Kamp’s real concern, which is that portions of the initiative are opposed by criminal attorneys who support him.

The offer of the $25,000 donation to the half-million-dollar process of signature-gathering did not impress them.

The initiative’s backers were hoping that instead of insisting that the measure be amended, Van de Kamp would agree to language on the ballot specifically telling the voter--and future courts--that the initiative’s section on privacy does not endanger the right to abortion.

“Thanks to Van de Kamp,” fumed Kern County Dist. Atty. Edward Jagels, “we now face the prospect of major opposition to this initiative. I would have to say it is going to be a battle to get it approved.”

Two things are going on in this controversy, and so far Van de Kamp has dominated the elaborate chess game involved.

On the one hand, the California District Attorneys Assn. and a group of crime victims have been trying for several years to qualify an initiative that would speed up state trials and shield victims from some court appearances.

On the other hand, Wilson, seeing a chance to tap into voter concern about crime, agreed to be what the initiative’s supporters had long been looking for: a sponsor with fund-raising clout.

The meshing of the two goals appeared to be flawless in recent months, as more than $400,000--thanks to Wilson’s assistance--poured in and the firm paid to gather the qualifying signatures passed the halfway mark toward the 900,000 raw total it believes will be necessary to provide 650,000 valid voter signatures.

But last week, acting on the advice of both political advisers and some legal scholars, Van de Kamp charged that the California Constitution’s guarantee of privacy--a major protection of abortion rights--would be in danger if the crime initiative passed.

Basis of Objection

The language he objected to was: “In criminal cases, the right of a defendant . . . to privacy . . . shall be construed by the courts in this state in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States.”

The problem, argues Van de Kamp, is that there is no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. Take away California’s own privacy clause, he says, and the Legislature could some day make it a crime to have or perform an abortion.

A coalition of women’s groups has promised to fight the crime initiative unless the disputed phrase is dropped.

One Hollywood source said Tuesday that politically active actresses Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand and Sally Field would soon be asked by the coalition to donate and raise large sums for a campaign against the crime initiative.

This kind of opposition was not good news to Jagels and the other district attorneys meeting here Tuesday, but they refused Van de Kamp’s request to remove the clause in question, arguing that the measure could not be qualified if they had to start all over gathering signatures.

“We have some big contributors in the business community--one man gave us $50,000--but we cannot go back to them and ask for it all over again based on a spurious objection by Van de Kamp,” Jagels said.

He said the business community’s main interest in the crime initiative is that it will speed up trials and thus reduce the time of employees lost to jury duty.

They question Van de Kamp’s real motives, as well, and he acknowledged in his speech to them Tuesday that he did not like other provisions in the initiative but was willing to support it if they take out the privacy language.

While making objections to the initiative could hurt Van de Kamp with crime-conscious voters, Wilson too could be harmed by appearing to be against abortion.

And they are not the only politicians in a tough spot because of the crime initiative.

Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, running for attorney general, has built his political career as a tough talker on crime.

While Reiner believes that one of Van de Kamp’s arguments--that old statutes now on the books in California outlawing abortion could be revived if the privacy guarantee is removed--is “a reach,” he is concerned about future anti-abortion laws.