One Crime Proposal Has Got It Right : Proposition 133 on the November ballot deserves support, but not 129

Among the ballot propositions Californians will confront at the polls next month are two measures dealing with crime, law enforcement and the justice system. Neither is perfect.

However, in the case of Proposition 133, the so-labeled “Safe Streets Initiative,” the proposal’s obvious benefits so outweigh its defects that it merits approval. The situation with Proposition 129, the Drug Enforcement, Taxation, Bonds Initiative, is just the opposite and, therefore, it ought to be rejected.

If approved, Proposition 133 holds the promise of giving the state a fresh and constructive framework in which to engage the wrenching and seemingly intractable problems of drugs and crimes. This is why the measure is supported not only by its chief sponsor, Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy, but also by state schools Supt. Bill Honig and L.A. Police Chief Daryl Gates.

Prop 133 proposes to increase the state sales and use tax by one-half cent for four years. The proceeds of that levy would be deposited in a special “Safe Streets Fund” from which it could be appropriated according to the following formula: 42% to be distributed by the superintendent of public instruction for the conduct of anti-drug education; 40% to be allocated by the state attorney general to local law enforcement agencies; 10% to be spent by the Department of Corrections for prison and jail costs, including support of drug-treatment programs for inmates and parolees; 8% for the secretary of health and welfare to spend on drug treatment and prevention programs.

This is one spending proposal with its priorities firmly and sensibly in order. Its critics have raised understandable objections to its reliance on a regressive tax and about its abolition of early release credits for prisoners convicted of specified felonies. Such reservations have merit, but they ought not to stand in the way of Proposition 133’s passage. Vote yes.

Proposition 129 is another matter entirely. It does propose an innovative approach to prison siting and construction. It does provide that changes in the constitutional right to privacy enacted last June by the passage of Proposition 115 shall not be construed in such a way as to affect reproductive choice. These are both areas of genuine concern and deserve to be dealt with on their own. This measure, however, also proposes tax code changes already enacted by the Legislature and duplicates the same reckless constitutional changes already incorporated in Proposition 115--provisions that currently are being challenged before the state Supreme Court. Vote no.