Prop 90: Eminent Domain Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
There's a whole host of state propositions coming up in the November statewide race which may make the governor's race just one of the horses to watch.
We can count on at least one Trojan horse in all this. In November 2005 it was Prop 73, which aimed to limit young womens' access to abortion with a poison pill outlawing choice entirely should Roe v. Wade get overturned.
This time, to start, it's Prop 90, which argues that it's responding to the worries over the extensive use of eminent domain in the wake of
a recent controversial US Supreme Court ruling on the issue. The court held that it was constitutionally permissable to seize land for private development as well as traditional "public" use such as schools and roads.
It would actually make it financially impossible for local government to use eminent domain at all. I can't explain it any better than a coalition of business, labor, environment groups who have come together to oppose it.
Read what they've got to say right here.
Prop 36: Under Fire or Given New Life?
The following is excerpted from a message send by Elizabeth Sholes of California Church IMPACT:
http://www.calchurches.orgThe issue is a bill written by
Senator Ducheny, a San Diego Democrat, which provides more funding and authority for courts to impose a broader range of incarceration options for drug offenders, arguably violating the spirit if not the law of Proposition 36. Supporters claim that the measure reflects growing evidence that a strong stick makes the carrot of drug treatment more effective for drug offenders.
This is an interesting issue for progressives. Like most liberally-inclided folks, I want drug offenses to be treated as health problems, not criminal offenses. But my own observation of drug offenders and studies of the state's drug courts seems to find that many offenders need a club held over their heads to get in, stay in and get through effective drug treatment. I don't want to return to the "stick only" option but adding some more and tougher suasion might not be a bad idea.
-------------------------------------
Dear Friends:
ISSUE:
SB 1137 (Ducheny-San Diego) has passed both houses cutting
funding for Proposition 36 offering drug treatment instead of jail
time.
Religious Leaders Endorse Petition to Protect Landmark Drug Treatment Law
Elected Officials Ignore Prison Crisis, Scrap Country’s Most Effective
Prison Diversion Program. Clergy Announce An Immediate Backlash.
Contact: Anthony Marsh (213) 989-1630
Over 50 religious leaders throughout Southern California joined Progressive Christians Uniting in urging Governor Schwarnzenegger to protect the landmark drug treatment law known as Proposition 36.
Clergy representing Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino and surrounding regions have endorsed a petition asking the Governor to veto a bill which would unconstitutionally alter the program designed to provide drug treatment rather incarceration to nonviolent substance abuse offenders.
Six years ago, over 60 percent of California voters overwhelmingly passed the drug treatment initiative Proposition 36. Now it is in jeopardy of being changed. "Changing a voter approved ballot initiative is not only unconstitutional," says Progressive Christians Uniting Executive Director Rev. Peter Laarman, "but it is morally unconscionable. The law is successfully saving lives and repairing families."
Since the treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative (Prop. 36) passed, 60,000 people have graduated from Prop. 36 program drug treatment. Far fewer people are in jail or prison for drug use as a result.
A recent study by UCLA researchers showed that taxpayers have also saved over $1.3 billion dollars through prison diversion. In a recent poll, over 70 percent of voters say they would vote for Prop. 36 if it were on the ballot today. Even the legislatures’ own lawyers and the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) have declared that certain provisions of the bill are unconstitutional because they violate the true intent and purpose of Prop. 36.
The bill (SB-1137) proposed by Senator Denise Ducheny of San Diego sits on the desk of the Governor to decide. If he fails to veto the bill, he is likely to see a long and costly legal battle over the constitutionality of the bill. He will certainly see a backlash from religious leaders seeking to help rather punish people for their addictions.
While we ordinarily are very supportive of Senator Ducheny's work, we strongly oppose her efforts in SB 1137. This cutback in Proposition 36 programs is foolish and ultimately damaging to those seeking recovery and re-entering mainstream society. Proposition 36 is a major
contributor to our work on restorative justice and must be preserved.
Please contact Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office to urge a veto.
(The governor signed the bill late today.)Read the Sacramento Bee's review of the signing. Free registration may be required.
