The Political Fruit of Three Strikes

Republicans are trying their darnedest to get two good bites from the same apple of three strikes. But it’s highly unlikely the second bite will match the first unless Democrats do something dumb. Like give Republicans the whole apple.

The GOP enjoyed a delicious feast in 1994 by converting public anger over violent crime--the Polly Klaas murder, the L.A. riots--into one of the most popular ballot measures ever: “three strikes and you’re out.”

First a bill barreled through the Legislature. “Better get the hell out of the way,” then-Speaker Willie Brown advised Democrats. Most did. A couple who didn’t lost reelection bids.

To guard against possible legislative repeal, three-strikes advocates also sponsored the separate ballot initiative, and it was embraced by 72% of the voters.

It was sweet fruit for the GOP. Republican candidates allied with a compelling issue and it helped draw to the polls right-leaning, occasional voters who otherwise might have stayed home.

*

Now the state Supreme Court has punched a hole in three strikes. How big a hole the public perceives will determine the GOP’s new political opportunity.

If voters perceive three strikes to be gutted--which it is not--Republicans can become heroes by plugging the gaping hole. If they see only a slight dent--which probably is closer to reality--then there will be less demand for repair.

Thus, Gov. Pete Wilson calls the ruling “potentially dangerous to public safety” because judges now can impose more lenient sentences than intended by three strikes. And Democratic Senate leader Bill Lockyer says of the GOP’s repair proposal: “I don’t see the problem this is supposed to solve. This bill is unnecessary.”

The court unanimously ruled that trial judges, on their own, can overlook prior convictions when sentencing. Under the original three strikes, the prosecutor first had to move that a “prior” be overlooked. The GOP’s legislative solution is to pare discretion for judges and prosecutors alike in order to achieve the power balance required by the court.

“A turf war” by the bench, charges Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones, the three-strikes legislative author. “Appalling.”

“The hysteria about this is awful,” laments liberal Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara).

The conservative court actually did fellow Republicans a favor. The GOP has been on the wrong side politically of several issues--school vouchers, abortion, minimum wage, benefits for the aged and disabled--but now the party’s old standby, crime, has been reheated.

What Democrats cannot afford, especially those like Vasconcellos who are in tough election campaigns, is to be seen as criminal-coddling obstructionists, thwarting the public will. So virtually every Democrat now pays homage to the concept of three strikes--throw away the key on career violent criminals--while rapping a law that can lock up a pizza thief for life.

Critics note that 80% of the third strikes have been nonviolent crimes. “That misses the point,” Jones last week told an Assembly committee. Of this group, 70% previously had committed a violent crime. Their 25-years-to-life sentence “is not just for the third felony, it is for their continued, repeated offense to society.”

*

And so the argument will rage, fueled by Republicans who already have won the debate once. This not only is about punishing criminals, it’s about protecting/promoting political candidacies.

There is an intriguing twist. The state’s top law enforcement officer, Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, has been relatively quiet. The AG is not in a dither about the court ruling, saying, “Three strikes wasn’t emasculated. It’s still doing its job.”

Lungren and his district attorney allies have reservations about the fix-up measure, although he soon is expected to endorse it.

Assembly Minority Leader Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) also indicates he’ll probably support it. Two Democrats in tight races--Assemblywomen Debra Bowen of Marina del Rey and Dede Alpert of Coronado--already have voted for it in committee.

“The public’s going to be watching who does what,” says Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove). “Nothing riles the public like crime.”

But Senate leader Lockyer contends: “This is politicians in panic and heat--not constituents.”

“Democrats have to be careful,” warns Democratic consultant David Townsend. “They have to be for some form of three strikes.”

They’ll need to vote for a bill that satisfies voters there won’t be judicial indiscretion.

For their political health, Democrats need to take a small bite of the apple themselves.