Judging Prop. 64’s Merits

Re “Shake Off the Shakedowns,” editorial, Oct. 16: So let me get this straight. In August, the editors of the Los Angeles Times strongly opposed Proposition 64, writing that it “would strip away protections intended to keep predatory businesses from abusing consumers” (“Suit Initiative Goes Too Far,” editorial, Aug. 17). You warned that Proposition 64 would “gut the state’s tough Unfair Business Competition Law.”

But now, when the Field Poll shows Proposition 64 flopping badly with voters, you suddenly switch and side with Phillip Morris, Exxon, supermarket chains, car dealers and the like. These are the same corporations that have been forced to clean up toxic waste, remove mislabeled meat, cease defrauding car buyers and remove tobacco billboards from near playgrounds and schoolyards, thanks to the law Proposition 64 would gut.

You had it right the first time. Thankfully, the newest Field Poll shows that only 26% of voters favor limiting the public’s ability to enforce the laws against unfair business practices. But whether Proposition 64 flops or not, The Times has a lot of explaining to do.

Rosemary Shahan

President

Consumers for Auto

Reliability and Safety

Sacramento

*

I found your reversal of position on Proposition 64 very disappointing. In the 1990s, I was exposed to benzene and other toxic chemicals because Chevron refinery operators did not have a device to capture emissions from the loading of tankers at their El Segundo marine terminal. Government regulators had required others to install vapor recovery systems, which function like the covers on pump nozzles we use at gas stations.

Chevron’s competitors -- Arco, Mobil and others -- had all made multimillion-dollar investments in this technology. I joined the environmental group Communities for a Better Environment as a plaintiff in a lawsuit that resulted in Chevron agreeing to use a vapor recovery system. The state’s unfair competition law, which is the target of Proposition 64 supporters, protected me from exposure to toxic chemicals. That is why I am voting against Proposition 64.

Joseph K. Lyou

Executive Director

California Environmental

Rights Alliance, Hawthorne

*

Stop the presses! Did I read right that you are actually questioning “liberal interest”? Maybe there’s a hope of unbias in you yet. You wrote, “Unlike in almost every other state and at the federal level, private parties in California needn’t show any harm to bring a lawsuit.” The question I have is why was this ridiculous policy allowed to become law in the first place. Must be that overblown “we’re different in California” theme. Maybe it’s about time we realize being different is not always right nor does it always benefit the people.

Frank Dayton

Hesperia

*

The Times editorializes that, because of the Legislature’s failure to pass “tort reform” legislation and the power of the “trial lawyers’ lobby,” voters should support Proposition 64. Although I have been a criminal defense attorney for all of my 25 years of law practice, I know how valuable the “private attorney general” theory has been in gaining verdicts for individuals wronged by the system -- in situations where the California attorney general or local district attorneys could not or would not take meritorious cases. Proposition 64 is not about tort reform in general. It is about removing a remedy for usually poor and powerless litigants in cases where the powerful tend to shrink from taking meaningful action. A vote for Proposition 64 would turn the clock back to an era when many publicly significant tort cases were swept under the rug by elected public officials who did not want to fight politically unpopular battles.

Richard L. Huff

San Diego

*

In reversing course and endorsing Proposition 64, The Times bought a fiction peddled by proponents. Proposition 64 would shackle citizens trying to protect themselves and the public from environmental degradation and invasions of privacy.

The polluters and personal information traders who have bankrolled Proposition 64 say “no problem. The attorney general and local prosecutors can step in and fill the void.” I’m the attorney general. I know that is a falsehood. My office and local prosecutors aggressively enforce consumer and environmental protection laws. But we cannot do the job alone. That’s why citizen enforcement always has played a crucial role.

Public prosecutors do not have the resources to plug the huge gap Proposition 64 would create. The proponents know that. They know the initiative would make them less accountable for polluting and harming consumers. California has tough laws to protect our air, water, forests and financial privacy. Citizens’ ability to enforce these statutes depends on the law targeted by Proposition 64.

Bill Lockyer

Attorney general

Sacramento