PROPOSITIONS 129, 133 : Voters Are Asked to Fund the War Against Drugs

Twice this decade Californians have voted solidly for sweeping anti-crime initiatives designed to limit defendants’ rights, speed court procedures and lengthen prison terms for repeat offenders.

Now, in a more demanding test of their resolve to curb crime, the voters are being asked in two measures on the Nov. 6 ballot to spend billions of tax dollars on law enforcement, drug treatment and drug education.

Proposition 133, the California Safe Streets Act sponsored by Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, would raise the sales tax by one-half cent to finance a four-year, $7.5-billion plan to put more police on the streets, expand drug education in schools and provide treatment for drug users. Offenders who repeat violent or drug-related crimes would be denied early release on parole.

Proposition 129, the Comprehensive Crime Reduction and Drug Control Act sponsored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, would allocate $1.9 billion in general tax funds over an eight-year period for drug enforcement and treatment. It also would authorize $740 million in bonds to build desert prisons for drug offenders.

The two initiatives have emerged in the wake of voter approval of two previous measures--Proposition 8, the “victims’ bill of rights,” passed with a 56% majority in 1982, and Proposition 115, the Crime Victims’ Justice Reform Act, was adopted last June with 57% of the vote.

Unlike those predecessors, the two current initiatives focus on programs rather than procedures and call for major long-term expenditures to combat crime and drugs. California now is spending about $3 billion annually in local, state and federal funds for drug-related law enforcement, education and treatment programs, according to the state legislative analyst.

No one is claiming the ballot measures will guarantee victory in the war on drugs. But backers say a wide-scale attack on the problem may be the best hope.

“This is more than just talking tough on crime,” said San Mateo County Dist. Atty. James Fox, a supporter of Proposition 133. “What this does is provide a funding mechanism that will be beneficial to the entire system--education as well as criminal justice.”

But will tax-conscious voters be willing to approve billions in new spending? “There will be real taxpayer scrutiny of any measure that asks more for government services,” answers McCarthy. “But this is one area that (the voters) express a willingness to pay.”

Propositions 133 and 129 are encountering significant opposition, primarily from business groups and anti-tax activists. Foes charge that the measures were designed as mere campaign vehicles for the politicians who sponsored them and should be rejected as too rigid and costly.

Opponents such as the California Chamber of Commerce are critical of what they call “ballot-box budgeting,” where initiatives inflexibly commit large amounts of tax dollars for programs without regard to their need or efficiency.

“Proposition 8, one of the most sweeping criminal procedural reforms ever enacted, didn’t cost one ding-dong dollar,” said Richard Gann, son of the late tax activist Paul Gann and now president of Paul Gann’s Citizens Committee.

“These initiatives, by earmarking special taxes, are devastating to a republican form of government,” said Gann, who also opposes Proposition 134, the “nickel-a-drink” initiative, on similar grounds. “They’ve circumvented the Legislature, taking away its ability to establish priorities for spending. They’ve gone to the public to try to sell a bill of goods. . . . I think they are going to fail horribly.”

Proposition 133 supporters include Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein. The Republican nominee for governor, Pete Wilson, a prime sponsor of Proposition 115 in June, opposes 133.

Backers of 133 say that in its first year, $576 million would be distributed to law enforcement agencies to combat gangs and drug traffickers, and $64 million would be allocated for more judges and prosecutors. Also, schools from kindergarten to high school would get $672 million for anti-drug programs. Now, backers say, only 15% of California students receive comprehensive anti-drug education. The measure would allocate $160 million for state prisons--now overflowing with nearly double their 51,000-inmate official capacity--and county jails. Funds also would be apportioned to cover the cost of another provision that requires prisoners who repeat violent or drug-related crimes to serve full terms. Another $128 million would be spent on drug treatment and rehabilitation programs.

Proposition 133’s opponents, including Republican state Sen. Marian Bergeson, McCarthy’s rival for lieutenant governor, calculate that the measure would increase the average family’s taxes by $500. While the sales tax increase is for only four years, the Legislature would encounter heavy pressure to maintain funding for the programs beyond that period, foes say. Thus, the reality of 133 is a permanent tax increase, they contend.

Like 133, Van de Kamp’s Proposition 129 is aimed at fighting the drug problem on several fronts. But backers of both measures say there is no conflict.

Proposition 129 would allocate about 60% of the $1.9-billion “superfund” it creates--or about $120 million a year--for local law enforcement agencies for use against drug-related crime. The rest of the money would be spent on local drug treatment, education and prevention; the prosecution and probation-supervision of drug offenders; and an existing statewide task force on drug crime.

General obligation bonds would be sold to finance no-frills “cocaine camps” to house up to 36,000 drug offenders who might otherwise be doing time in already-overcrowded corrections facilities.

To pay for its anti-drug programs, 129 mandates law changes ito close corporate tax “loopholes”--an action already taken by the Legislature last summer after the initiative had been prepared. Sponsors say that if 129 passes, it still will be entitled to revenue from the tax changes.

The initiative also makes a change in Proposition 115 to ensure--as 115 sponsors have said repeatedly--that it does not threaten the right to abortion. Van de Kamp had opposed Proposition 115 on the grounds it could be interpreted to invalidate that right.

Opponents of Proposition 129, including Gates, Gann and state Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), call the measure a costly and unnecessary “political gimmick” left over from Van de Kamp’s unsuccessful bid for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination last June. Because the tax “loopholes” that the measure targeted have already been closed by the Legislature--and resulting revenue allocated--the only way 129 can be funded is through cuts in existing services or increased taxes, opponents say.