900056
Three Strikes Reform: Time For the Ballot
On election day, November 5, 2002, a contingent of California criminal justice reform advocates found themselves at the U.S. Supreme Court. Eight years after voters had enacted the Three Strikes law, the court was holding its first hearings on the issue, in two separate, similar cases. Family members of prisoners and others with a deep interest in the outcome came to see the drama up close.
The justices were being asked to declare some Three Strikes punishments unconstitutional on grounds that they violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.” A positive ruling could open the way for thousands of people imprisoned under Three Strikes to seek new, shorter terms.
But to judge by the long faces of those who attended the oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to fix Three Strikes for us. The justices did not seem taken by the injustice inherent in Three Strikes terms of 25-years-to-life for petty offenses.
For those wishing for reform of Three Strikes, one other avenue could be the state legislature. Yet, to date, the only bill to gain traction was one to study Three Strikes, and it was vetoed by Gov. Gray Davis. Serious change through legislation seems but a dim hope.
TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE BALLOT
The conclusion is increasingly clear: It’s time to take the fight to reform Three Strikes out of the courtroom and back to the ballot box.
A ballot initiative to reform Three Strikes might seem quixotic. The original measure was approved by more than 70% of voters, and Californians have shown little inclination since then to go “soft” on crime.
But the news is far better than you might expect. A recent poll of registered and likely California voters shows that two-thirds are ready to consider reforming Three Strikes. Solid majorities would vote “yes” on a sensible package of reforms that limits the reach of the law to truly violent and serious offenses.
What has changed since 1994? The electorate has become educated as to the excesses and injustices of the law. Many feel they were sold a bill of goods. They recognize that a big banner headline (“crackdown on violent criminals”) effectively hid many objectionable details, like life sentences for stealing a slice of pizza or some videotapes.
These cases, and the educational efforts of groups like the ACLU and Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes (FACTS), laid the groundwork for 67% of voters to agree that:
California’s Three Strikes law has had many unintended effects, and needs to be reformed.
Also, 73% disapproved of the fact that under Three Strikes, “a non-violent felony such as drug possession or theft of a small item can result in a life sentence.” And 63% remained favorable to a specific proposal to amend Three Strikes after detailed discussion and arguments for and against the package.
In my field of political campaign management, the rule of thumb for assessing an initiative’s prospects is that you must begin with at least 60 percent support for the basic proposal. Three Strikes Reform meets that test.
All of this tells us that Three Strikes Reform is not only vital to undo the most overreaching and unjust sentencing law ever presented to an electorate—we also see that reform is a viable proposal to take back to the voters.
The question is how we get to the ballot. In a strategic plan for a reform initiative I developed with FACTS, we have spelled out the priorities for the next several months and into 2004.
Given what we know now, a Three Strikes reform initiative can win if it is carefully drafted and if the campaign is somewhat well funded. The drafting challenge is to look in-depth at voter opinions on both the “big picture” of Three Strikes and on the little details of a reform package. Calibrating the initiative text to comport with public opinion is a delicate art, but with time and funding this can be done well enough to maximize the chance of success.
The campaign itself has substantial financial needs. FACTS needs $1 million in non-tax-exempt political donations to pay for signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. The initiative must be ready soon—by July or August 2003, with a signature drive beginning in late autumn. Funding for legal drafting, opinion research and a basic campaign structure is needed from now through election day. And initiative sponsors need to plan to spend at least another $1.5 million on television advertising to help “lock in” support once the measure is on the 2004 ballot.
Those dollar figures seem to be beyond the capacity of existing Three Strikes reformers. But we know there is interest in California and nationwide for a proposal to rewrite Three Strikes and to begin bringing home some of the people caught in its terrible net. We must begin the discussion, the networking, and, yes, the fundraising work now to get into a position to reform Three Strikes at the next general election.
-------------------------------------------------
Dave Fratello is a political consultant in Santa Monica, and served as campaign manager for Proposition 36 in 2000. He can be reached at: dave@drugreform.org
FEBRUARY 2003
Download Issue as PDF
Californias Other Perfect Storm
Three Strikes Reform: Time For the Ballot
Eighth Grade Lesbian Stands Up To Discrimination At School
Access vs. Privacy in Court Records: A Difficult Balance
ACLU/SC Monitors Human Rights at Second Special Registration
LAPD Racial Profiling Data Raises Questions That Need Answering
Special Registration, Detentions Cast Shadow of Fear Over Immigrant Communities
