The defeat of Proposition 66 in Tuesday’s election came as
a shock to many of its supporters.
The measure, which would have amended California’s Three
Strikes Law, was defeated in Tuesday’s election with more
than a 53 percent majority.
Supporters of the proposition vowed in a press release sent out
Tuesday night to continue their fight to fix what they perceive as
the flaws of the law.
The statement, released by the Fix 3 Strikes, Yes on 66
campaign, cited “the huge campaign of fear and disinformation
in the campaign’s final days” and the opposition to
Proposition 66 by “the celebrity power of a charismatic
governor” as reasons for measure’s failure. They
pledged to broaden their efforts to amend the law.
Under the law, a person found guilty of two serious or violent
crimes is sentenced to a minimum of 25 years to life in prison upon
a third felony conviction.
Proposition 66 would have amended the law to require the third
offense to be only a violent or serious felony.
The measure also would have redefined violent and serious
felonies, allowing conditional resentencing of persons with
sentences increased under Three Strikes if their crimes
didn’t fall under the violent or serious felony category, and
increased punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
Over 5 million Californians voted against the proposition.
Opponents of the measure said the law’s resentencing clause
would set criminals free, posing a danger to public safety.
There was a widespread conviction among all levels of supporters
of Proposition 66 that the public was misinformed on the objects of
amending the law, and legal experts said this could have been a
factor in voting.
“I suspect that people understood it was an effort to
tighten the requirements for imposing heightened penalties under
the law. I don’t know how many people understood exactly what
those requirements would entail,” said David Sklansky, a law
professor at the UCLA School of Law.
“I don’t know, I can’t get in the heads of the
people who voted against it. The fact that the governor was opposed
to it probably carried some weight with people,” Sklansky
said, noting it is easier to pass legislation on items such as
reducing sentences when it is favored by the political leadership
of the state.
Sara Shults, a spokeswoman for No on Prop 66, noted plans for
continuing the fight against those who have publicized their
intention to keep working to amend the Three Strikes law, such as
the Fix 3 Strikes, Yes on 66 campaign.
“I’m disappointed. We thought we had a great chance
of getting this passed,” said Sandy Harrison, a spokeswoman
for Fix 3 Strikes, Yes on 66.
He said the campaign was hit recently by huge oppositional
spending by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Supporters of the failed measure plan to create a coalition,
combining people who supported the campaign with people who
acknowledged there were flaws in the law but disagreed with how the
measure dealt with fixing those flaws during the campaign, Harrison
said.
“There are fundamental issues of justice and fairness
involved,” Harrison said, calling the sentencing of some
felons on a non-violent crime which happened to be their third
strike illogical.
“There are people serving sentences that don’t fit
the crimes committed,” Harrison said.
Campus groups such as Conciencia Libre, the group responsible
for the large signs addressing Proposition 66 on Bruin Walk, said
they would keep working on getting the law amended.
Legal analysts say eventually the law will probably be changed,
but the amount of time it could take may vary.
“The law does sweep too broadly, and ultimately it will be
modified to sweep more narrowly, but that may take a long
time,” Sklansky said.
“It’s much easier to ratchet up sentences than it is
to ratchet them down. It is much easier to explain to the public
why criminals need bigger sentences than to explain why they need
shorter ones. … You’re fighting an uphill battle when law
enforcement and the government are against it,” Sklansky
said.