Proposition 115 : It’s Reform, Not Attack on Rights : Prop. 115: Issues of privacy, abortion, sexual preference, taxes would not be affected.

Most of the ballot arguments against Proposition 115 are based on the false premise that the measure will eliminate the state constitutional right to privacy. Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution guarantees that right and is entirely unchanged by Proposition 115. What the initiative would do is limit a criminal defendant’s procedural rights regarding search and seizure, speedy trial, privacy, and other matters to those provided under the federal Constitution.

The right to privacy has been abused by criminal defendants to keep the jury from learning relevant evidence against them. For example, defendants have made claims that their rights to privacy would be violated if the jury were told of their confessions made in police cars or recorded by police in jail cells.

The opponents of the initiative are also claiming that it will somehow affect the abortion issue. There is no reference in Proposition 115 to abortion. It is clear from the ballot argument in favor of Proposition 115, and from the language of the proposition itself that it was intended to affect only criminal procedure and not the right to abortion.

Among the most outrageous claims made by the initiative’s opponents is that it will “undermine religious freedom” and eliminate free-speech rights such as the right to circulate petitions. Proposition 115 has nothing to do with religious freedom or free speech. More important, these rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Nor will Proposition 115 make it “difficult” to keep medical records private. The confidentiality of medical records has been protected by statute for as long as anyone can remember, and the initiative does nothing to change that.

Nothing in Proposition 115 suggests any intent to “criminalize certain sexual preferences.” The due process clause of the U.S. Constitution does not permit punishment for status (such as sexual preference), but only for conduct. California was one of the first states to decriminalize sexual conduct between consenting adults, including persons of the same sex, and there is no threat that the outmoded and unenforceable “bedroom laws” of the past will ever be resurrected.

In case there are some voters who do not care about any of these issues, the opponents throw in an old standby: the threat of new taxes. The ballot argument claims that Proposition 115 will cost “millions of dollars in new taxes.” The initiative contains no provisions for tax assessments. In fact, it will save money by eliminating unnecessary court appearances for which court-appointed attorneys are paid, and by shortening the trial process. This will be accomplished by streamlining the jury selection process to allow the judge rather than the lawyers to ask the questions, by eliminating separate closed sessions for questioning of jurors in death penalty cases, by allowing the statements of certain witnesses to the police to be used at the preliminary hearing instead of a live appearance in court, and by eliminating duplicative pretrial probable-cause hearings.

A final misconception is that Proposition 115 will result in more trials. What the initiative would do is restore the option of prosecutors to proceed by grand jury indictments or by preliminary hearing. This option is contained in the state Constitution, but was effectively nullified by the Rose Bird Court. While most cases will continue with the preliminary hearing procedure, Proposition 115 will give prosecutors the flexibility to use the grand jury for those cases in which it is more efficient to do so.

Voters should not allow these scare tactics to prevent essential reform of the criminal justice system.