Voters Favor Scaling Back 3-Strikes Law

Two weeks before election day, a ballot measure to substantially roll back the state’s three-strikes sentencing law is leading by almost 3 to 1 among likely voters, while some other high-profile measures remain locked in close contests, according to a new Times poll.

Enough California voters remain undecided on several health-related measures to sway the outcome in either direction -- making the final days crucial for opposing sides.

A proposal to sell $3 billion in state bonds to pay for embryonic stem cell research appeared ahead, with a slight majority planning to vote for it. Also leading was a ballot referendum that would require many companies to provide health insurance to their workers, although a quarter of likely voters were still undecided. A proposal to tax millionaires to pay for mental health services is also leading.

But voters are almost evenly split on a plan for a telephone surcharge to pay for emergency services.

As they grapple with the complex menu of 16 initiatives -- one of the longest ballots in California history -- the magnitude of the choices they are being asked to make weighs on some voters.

“A lot of the issues are things we don’t deal with on a daily basis,” said Jane Lybecker, 42, a computer systems teacher from Petaluma who agreed to a follow-up interview. “We don’t know what these issues are being weighed against. Where could that money be going if we don’t spend it on this? I try to read the voter guide and educate myself, but so many times you don’t know what the whole story is.”

The Times Poll, supervised by polling director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,345 registered voters, of whom 925 were considered likely to vote in November. It was conducted statewide Oct. 14 to 18. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Proposition 66

The measure to change the state’s tough “three strikes” sentencing law was backed by 62% of likely voters in the survey and opposed by 21%, with 17% undecided.

The degree of support for the measure has startled many political experts. Just a decade ago, voters approved the three-strikes law with 74% support. At that time, concern about crime was high, and the highly publicized kidnapping and murder of a 12-year-old girl, Polly Klaas, helped generate support for tougher measures.

But most Californians now appear ready to reconsider.

The current law allows sentences of 25 years to life for defendants convicted of a third felony -- regardless of its seriousness -- if they have two convictions on their record for serious or violent felonies.

The new statute would greatly scale back who can be sentenced under the three-strikes law. It would make several changes, including requiring that only serious or violent felonies trigger a life sentence.

The changes would cure what critics consider to be the current law’s worst extreme: the imposition of sentences of 25 years to life for crimes such as shoplifting or check-kiting.

Thousands of inmates who have been convicted and sentenced under three strikes would be eligible to have their sentences changed, and many would be released early.

Support for the measure appeared to cut across ideological lines in the survey. Among people who described themselves as conservative, 50% said they would vote for the measure, compared with 33% saying they would vote against it.

The measure is opposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, the state’s district attorneys and a wide range of law enforcement entities. Schwarzenegger sent a mailer last week to about 5 million California voters that included his opposition to Proposition 66, and he plans to begin public campaigning against the measure today.

So far, however, their arguments seem to have failed against a widespread voter sentiment that the current law locks too many people away at too high a cost.

“I think to do a crime and to be sequestered away for life as a result that it should be for something very serious,” said Jubal Kohn, a 27-year-old film and TV producer in Hollywood.

Steve Corbin, a 52-year-old designer of model airplanes who lives near Lake Arrowhead, said he also planned to vote to change the law.

“If someone shoplifts and got 25 to life, what does that cost us?” Corbin said. “Seems to me we could take that money and invest it in some other way to help people out to make it less likely to have two-time felons running around.”

“It’s not really a good idea to put anyone in the position of having nothing to lose,” he added. “That’s where the highway patrolman walks up to the car and ends up shot.”

On the other side, Katherine Garcia, a 50-year-old medical secretary from Visalia, said she liked the three-strikes law “exactly the way it is. I think it has put very dangerous criminals off the streets, and I think that’s where they should be.”

Despite the measure’s large advantage in the poll, one indicator suggests that the campaign remains unsettled: Proposition 66 was one of four measures in the poll on which fewer than half of voters surveyed were able to say how they would vote before being read the ballot language.

Proposition 71

The proposal to provide $3 billion for embryonic stem cell research through the sale of state bonds was the poll’s one exception to the low voter awareness of the ballot measures.

Backers of the initiative have run statewide television commercials for weeks, using a war chest of more than $22 million. The campaign appears to have gotten through to voters. Nearly seven in 10 now say they know how they would vote without having to hear the ballot language, up from 42% a month ago.

Proposition 71 was ahead by a 53% to 34% margin, with 13% undecided, nearly identical to the support of voters a month ago when The Times asked about the measure.

Compared with the poll a month ago, the percentage of people who did not need to hear details before saying they planned to vote for the measure rose from 30% to 49%. Those opposed who knew how they would vote without hearing details also rose from 11% last month to 20%.

The poll was completed before Monday’s endorsement of the initiative by Schwarzenegger. Supporters of the measure hope the governor’s backing will sway voters concerned about the measure’s cost, an estimated $6 billion over the 30-year course of the bond.

The poll provides some indication that the financial argument has held back support for the measure: Those surveyed favored expanding embryonic stem cell research in general by much higher margins -- 74% to 19%.

In addition to the cost arguments, the measure is opposed by groups that object on moral grounds to using embryos for research. The opposition has been far outpaced in fundraising, reporting about $200,000 to proponents’ more than $22 million, and has aired no television commercials.

Proposition 72

A state law passed last year would require businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance to workers or pay a fee into a state-run plan for those workers.

Proposition 72 is a referendum asking voters to vote yes or no on that law.

So far, the poll indicates that a plurality of likely voters are in favor -- 46% to 29%. But with 25% still undecided, that advantage could evaporate in the closing days of the campaign.

Business leaders, led by the California Chamber of Commerce and the hotel and restaurant industries, placed the measure on the ballot hoping to overturn the statute, and they have waged an extensive campaign saying it would cost the state jobs. Unions and healthcare groups backing the measure narrowed the fundraising gap recently in the campaign, but they are likely to be outspent.

The measure would expand healthcare coverage to 1.4 million of California’s 5.3 million uninsured people, according to state estimates.

Proposition 63

State voters appear willing to tax millionaires to pay for increased mental health services.

When read the ballot language, likely voters said they supported the plan 54% to 27%, with 19% undecided. The measure would increase by 1% the tax on incomes of more than a million dollars. The funds -- an estimated $600 million each year -- would be used to create county programs and expand existing ones.

The state would begin collecting the tax in January 2005.

Although voters supported the measure once they heard the ballot language, awareness of it was the lowest of the five in the survey. Nearly seven in 10 voters said they did not know enough about the measure to say how they would vote.

Neither side has mounted a major television advertising effort on the measure, which is backed by Campaign for Mental Health and opposed by anti-tax and business groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and the California Chamber of Commerce.

Poll respondents in follow-up interviews were divided on the measure. Some people said they believed taxing the wealthy made sense, simply because they had the money to pay for it. Others said they had reservations about taxing a small group of people, 25,000 to 35,000 households, to pay for services that would benefit everyone.

“I have no trouble with millionaires,” said Rolando Bathauer, 70, a retired restaurant executive from Reedley. “So I don’t see why they should pay any more than anyone else. That’s penalizing people who have been successful, and I have a problem with that.”

Proposition 67

A second healthcare-related tax measure, which would increase the surcharge on telephone bills to pay for emergency services, is supported by 41% of likely voters and opposed by 43%.

Although 16% said they are not sure of their vote, voters who are undecided late in a campaign generally trend toward voting no.

The measure would add a surcharge of up to 3% on monthly bills for in-state phone calls -- capped at 50 cents per month for residential customers.

The plan was placed on the ballot by a coalition of healthcare organizations who hope to supplement lagging emergency services through the new surcharge. The tax would raise an estimated $500 million a year.

Supporters of the measure have pointed to numerous recent hospital and emergency room closures to explain why it is needed. But their effort has run into strong opposition from major telephone companies, which have raised millions to lead opposition to the measure.

U.S. Senate

Incumbent Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, retains a commanding lead over Republican challenger Bill Jones. Boxer, running for her third six-year term, leads by a 55% to 33% margin. Nearly nine in 10 likely voters said they were sure of their vote.

Despite high hopes by Republicans that Schwarzenegger’s victory in last year’s recall election would lead to other statewide wins by GOP candidates, Jones’ campaign has been unable to attract voters’ attention. He has raised about $6 million to Boxer’s $16 million and hasn’t aired television commercials since December. Asked whether they had a positive or negative impression of Jones, 43% said they did not know enough about him to know.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

State issues and races

Among registered voters:

Q. Do you think things in this (country/California) are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong track...

... in the nation?

Wrong track 59%

Right direction 35%

Don’t know 6%

... in California?

Wrong track 46%

Right direction 44%

Don’t know 10%

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor?

Approve 66%

Disapprove 25%

Don’t know 9%

Senate race

Among likely voters:

Q. If the November general election for U.S. Senator were being held today, for whom would you vote?

Barbara Boxer 55%

Bill Jones 33%

Don’t know 9%

Don’t know 3%

Q. What is your impression of...

... Barbara Boxer?

Favorable 60%

Unfavorable 34%

Haven’t heard enough 5%

Don’t know 1%

... Bill Jones?

Haven’t heard enough 43%

Favorable 33%

Unfavorable 21%

Don’t know 3%

The Propositions

Among likely voters:

Q. How would you vote for the following Propositions if the November general election were being held today:

Proposition 63: ‘The Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding Tax on Personal Income Above $1 Million’

Vote for 54%

Vote against 27%

Don’t know 19%

Proposition 66:

‘The Limitation on Three Strikes Law, Sex Crimes, Punishment Initiative Statute’

Vote for 62%

Vote against 21%

Don’t know 17%

Proposition 67: ‘The Emergency Medical Services, Funding, Telephone Surcharge, Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute’

Vote against 43%

Vote for 41%

Don’t know 16%

Proposition 71: ‘The Stem Cell Research, Funding, Bonds Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute’

Vote for 53%

Vote against 34%

Don’t know 13%

Proposition 72:

‘The Health Care Coverage Requirements Referendum’

Vote for 46%

Vote against 29%

Don’t know 25%

How the poll was conducted

The Los Angeles Times Poll contacted 1,694 California adults by telephone October 14 through 18, 2004. That includes 1,345 registered voters and, among them, 925 that were deemed most likely to vote in the November election. Respondents’ intention to vote, the certainty of their vote, their interest in the campaign, whether they will be a first time voter and their past voting history were used to determine their probability of voting. Telephone numbers for the overall sample were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the state. Random digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and unlisted numbers were contacted. The sample of all California adults was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and party registration figures from the secretary of state’s office. The margin of sampling error for all registered voters and likely voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.

Source: Times Poll