Wilson Finds He Is Isolated Over Crime Initiative

Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson suddenly found himself isolated Thursday in the furor over a proposed crime initiative that some fear could endanger the right to abortion.

The California District Attorneys Assn. has decided to compromise in an effort to head off opposition from a women’s coalition should the measure qualify for the June, 1990, ballot. The prosecutors will announce today that they support an effort to get the Legislature to amend the initiative and put it on the ballot, according to one board member.

Collene Campbell, a leader of a crime victims group, said she supports the proposal to get the Legislature to recast the initiative, although she is not optimistic lawmakers will go along with the idea.

Also on Thursday, state Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), a Wilson ally, said he would not try to block legislative action on the initiative, even though he could be viewed as aiding the pro-choice position on abortion.

“I would rather not take out the words about privacy, but I would do it if we could get all the other good things that are in this crime initiative,” said Seymour, a key member of the anti-abortion alliance in the Legislature.

The furor over the initiative was set off when Democratic Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp--who like Wilson is running for governor--demanded that the crime initiative be amended to delete words that he said could undercut the California constitutional right to privacy cited by courts in legalizing abortions in the state.

Wilson, reached at his Senate office in Washington Thursday, said he was surprised that the district attorneys had agreed to try the legislative solution.

“The coalition that put this initiative together did so because the Legislature failed to enact the criminal reforms we need,” he said.

Wilson said there would be no change in his position that the initiative not be amended.

Van de Kamp wants words about privacy deleted from the measure because they would subordinate the California Constitution’s guarantee of privacy to the U.S. Constitution in criminal search-and-seizure cases.

That, Van de Kamp argues, could also endanger the right to abortion because that right is protected by the state Constitution’s privacy guarantee.

Wilson has charged that Van de Kamp’s argument is “bogus,” that there is no threat to abortion in the measure and that Van de Kamp is trying to appeal to liberal voters in the Democratic primary.

The possible legislative solution suggested by Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner calls for the state Senate and Assembly to put the crime initiative on the June, 1990, ballot after amending the measure to delete the words objected to by Van de Kamp.

Each House

It takes a two-thirds vote by each house for the Legislature to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That is hard to get on controversial issues, and some Republicans and Democrats are not optimistic that Reiner’s idea will work.

But Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) said Thursday that while he could not speak for the state Senate, “I think there are 54 votes in the Assembly to put this measure on the ballot.”

Brown has opposed some of the crime initiative’s provisions in the past.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said he will write legislation that duplicates the crime initiative “word for word,” except for the disputed section on privacy.

“Now that Reiner has suggested the Legislature put the crime initiative on the ballot,” Katz said, “the choice for Democrats is either to support that effort or risk losing the abortion issue in a ballot measure that is principally designed to put criminals behind bars.”

Kern County prosecutor Edward Jagels said Thursday that while the district attorneys will try the Reiner compromise, they and the crime victims will continue gathering voter signatures in an effort to qualify their initiative in unamended form in case the legislative solution does not work.