Voters to Decide Many Low-Profile Ballot Measures

They don’t divide people like the proposition to bar gay marriage in California. They don’t boast big bucks like the initiative battle between trial lawyers and insurance companies over lawsuits.

They are the other measures on the March 7 ballot--and there are plenty.

From Proposition 18, which would make intentional murders related to arsons and kidnappings death penalty offenses, to Proposition 27, which would note on the ballot a congressional candidate’s promise to limit his or her tenure in office, numerous issues that have received little public scrutiny soon will be decided by California voters via direct democracy.

“Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people who only learn about these [propositions] at the last minute,” said Trudy Schafer of the League of Women Voters, which is attempting to educate voters on all 20 measures with a series of publications and a Web site, www.smartvoter.org.

Three measures represent efforts to pay for long-needed institutional improvements by floating bonds and adding to the state’s debt.

Backed by a bevy of law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, Proposition 15 would provide $220 million in bond money to improve and build crime laboratories throughout California. The state would then pay $377 million over 25 years to retire the debt.

For Los Angeles County, the bonds would result in a state-of-the-art crime lab complex at Cal State Los Angeles that would be operated by the LAPD, the Sheriff’s Department and the attorney general’s office. The complex also would serve as a training center for future criminalists.

Better forensic facilities would not only allow authorities to place more criminals behind bars, but it also would let them identify the wrongly accused, said Baca, the measure’s chief sponsor.

“We are seeing more and more people being released from prison on DNA results, and that is why up-to-date crime labs are needed now,” Baca said. “The tools of evidence are becoming more and more sophisticated. We’re talking about freedom and jail, and the distance between those can be rather close.”

Supported by prominent veteran politicians including Arizona Sen. John McCain and Gov. Gray Davis, Proposition 16 would provide $50 million in bond money to the Department of Veterans Affairs to build three veterans homes in Southern California and renovate a facility in Yountville.

The money would be used in conjunction with federal funds to add 1,200 beds to the 1,400 in Yountville, considered far too few for a state the size of California.

Though they do not question the need for improvements, opponents of the crime lab and veterans home bonds, which include the Libertarian Party, contend that it would be irresponsible for California to pile on more debt. They advocate finding ways to fund construction through the state budget.

Proposition 14, endorsed by public librarians and a slew of local and state lawmakers, would provide $350 million in bond money to bolster library facilities throughout California.

After the government cutbacks of the early 1990s, few people seem to question the need to increase library spending. But critics, including state Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside), argue that government needs to refocus its priorities to improve library service, not borrow more money.

Another measure attempts to undo a tobacco tax approved by voters in November 1998. Proposition 28 would repeal Proposition 10, which placed an additional 50 cent per pack tax on cigarettes and enacted a proportionate tax hike on other tobacco products.

Its main supporter, discount cigarette store kingpin Ned Roscoe, contends that the tax increase was excessive and that the money, which is intended for early childhood development and smoking prevention programs, has not been put to use.

Opponents, including the American Cancer Society and most major health organizations, as well as Proposition 10 sponsor Rob Reiner, Tom Hanks and other Hollywood celebrities, argue that the local committees charged with distributing the tax money have been careful to do so prudently, and the effort is just beginning to bear fruit.

Most Californians probably don’t know it, but raffles requiring payment are illegal in California, as are all other lotteries other than bingo and the lottery the state runs. Proposition 17 would alter the state Constitution to legalize the charitable raffles already common among nonprofit groups. To qualify, at least 90% of the proceeds would have to go to charity.

Supporters say the change is needed so police officers don’t have to look the other way when well-meaning groups try to raise money. Opponents, including state Sen. Dick Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), argue that the charities are a foil for professional gambling interests that want to run big-time lotteries--and possibly even compete with the state.

Seeking to Buy Textbooks

Another lottery-related measure, Proposition 20, would change a government requirement that 34% of state lottery proceeds be spent on public education so that some of the money would have to be spent on instructional materials for schools and community colleges.

Several legislators, including Assembly members Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar) and Nell Soto (D-Pomona), support the change as a way to purchase much-needed textbooks for children. But numerous school groups, including the powerful California Teachers Assn. and California School Boards Assn., oppose it, saying it would restrict local schools’ flexibility.

“There is no new money,” said CTA spokesperson Tommye Hutto. “All this does is take away local control.”

Two law and order measures seek to continue the trend of stiffening sentences for murderers.

Proposition 18, the measure that would expand capital punishment by adding intentional murders resulting from arsons and kidnappings to the crimes warranting the death penalty, also would expand another death penalty category. Murders now committed “while lying in wait” are eligible for the death penalty. Proposition 18 would make a technical change, adding murders committed “by means of lying in wait,” which would include murders committed later, after the ambush takes place.

Supporters, who include Gov. Davis, former Gov. George Deukmejian and Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury, say that all murderers who ambush a victim deserve equal punishment, regardless of whether the act occurs at that same spot and time. Opponents, who include Senate Public Safety Committee Chairman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) and various anti-capital punishment groups, say that expanding the death penalty will do nothing to reduce crime.

A more narrowly focused measure, Proposition 19, would make the second-degree murder of a California State University or Bay Area Rapid Transit District officer punishable by life in prison without possibility of parole. It is supported by law enforcement groups, which point out that the university and transit police face the same risks as other officers. Opponents counter that the measure will add to the crowding of prisons and does nothing to deter crime.

Finally, two election-related measures reflect the public’s increasing frustration with politicians of all stripes.

Proposition 23 would give California voters the option of choosing “none of the above” on the ballot as a way of voicing their dissatisfaction with the candidates. The votes would not count on official tallies, and if “none of the above” managed to be the leading vote-getter, the first runner-up would be elected.

Supporters--including the measure’s chief financial backer, venture capitalist Alan F. Shugart, who once tried to run his Bernese mountain dog for a congressional seat--contend that voters need a new avenue for dissent. Opponents, including the Green Party, say alternatives already exist, and dismiss the measure as an empty shell.

Proposition 27 would allow congressional candidates to declare on the ballot that they will voluntarily abide by term limits, two for the U.S. Senate and three for the House of Representatives. The ballot would not mention if someone refused to make the promise, which could be broken anyway.

Supporters, including term limits advocates, say voters have a right to know if candidates have no intention of becoming career politicians. But opponents, including the League of Women Voters, contend that the measure lacks an understanding of politics in Washington, where seniority dictates powerful committee chair assignments--and influence for the members’ states.