Judge Orders Revisions in ‘Crime Victim’ Ballot Material

Ruling on a key issue in the debate over Proposition 115, a judge Tuesday ordered state authorities to revise official ballot materials to say the sweeping anti-crime initiative could have a “major fiscal impact” if enacted by voters June 5.

Superior Court Judge James T. Ford said he intended the word “impact” to apply not only to potential costs but to potential savings under the measure as well. He refused to adopt changes advocated by opponents to say the initiative could cost at least $500 million annually.

The judge also declined to amend the materials to reflect foes’ contentions that the initiative’s far-reaching reforms in the criminal justice system would “fundamentally change the system of government” in California.

Ford ordered that voter pamphlets to be sent to 11 million registered voters, ballot summaries and other official materials to be printed today state that the net fiscal effect of the measure is “unknown” and that it would make “several significant changes” in the justice system.

The materials, he said, also must state: “How the measure will be implemented and interpreted is unknown. There may be only a minor fiscal impact on state and local governments, or there may be a major fiscal impact.”

Lawyers representing opponents and sponsors of the initiative both claimed victory at the end of a bitterly contested hearing.

“This will let the voters know they are voting on something that could have a major fiscal impact on state and local government,” said Stephen V. Bomse, an attorney for a group of opponents who urged substantial revisions in materials. “This is a very significant accomplishment. It changes the tilt of the playing field entirely.”

But John E. Mueller of San Francisco, a lawyer for the sponsors of the initiative, hailed the judge’s refusal to accept foes’ claims that the measure could cost more than $500 million a year and result in “fundamental changes” in government. “This is a win for us,” he said.

Mueller brushed aside suggestions that to most voters, the term “major fiscal impact” would imply major fiscal costs. “The judge said fiscal impact also could mean savings. . . . It can be interpreted either way,” the attorney said.

The measure, known as the Crime Victims Justice Reform Initiative, would impose a broad array of procedural changes aimed at reducing delay in criminal proceedings. It would limit the rights of criminal defendants in California to those generally less-expansive rights required by the U.S. Supreme Court under the federal Constitution.

Opponents filed suit earlier this month, contending that ballot materials were misleading and should be revised to reflect foes’ belief that the measure would cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually to pay for more judges, prosecutors and public defenders to speed the process.

As then drafted, an assessment by the legislative analyst’s office said the net fiscal impact was “unknown” and “impossible to quantify.” Opponents submitted statements by local public defenders contending that under the measure, more defendants would elect to go to trial rather than plead guilty, thus raising court costs.

Supporters replied that the initiative actually would save many millions by reducing the length of pretrial hearings, jury selection and other time-consuming aspects of the current justice system. A study by the California District Attorneys’ Assn. claims that the measure could save taxpayers nearly $270 million annually.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Mueller ridiculed claims that huge taxpayer costs would result from the initiative’s reforms. “We’re the people who wrote it,” he told Judge Ford. “The last thing we want to do is double or triple the number of prosecutors and public defenders.”

Bomse said voters should be told in more explicit terms of the wide-reaching restrictions on the rights of defendants under the measure.