Download PDF versions of the Voter Guide

• English (PDF)
• Spanish (PDF)
• Chinese (PDF)
• Japanese (PDF)
• Korean (PDF)
• Tagalog (PDF)
• Vietnamese (PDF)

Download LAO Report (PDF)

Download the PDF

Download the PDF

The prosecutors and prison guards’ union got their way — but they’ve really lost. Our opponents hid the true cost of defeating Prop. 5 — billions of dollars in prison construction and operating costs. In the next few years, as our prison budget grows from $10 billion per year to $15 billion or more, we will all look back at Prop. 5 and wonder why we did not put a cap on prison costs when we had the chance.

That’s why your commitment to reform is so important. Although Prop. 5 lost this week, our historic effort was not in vain. Prop. 5 presented a vision for a future in which we do more for young people with drug problems, and improve the way we provide court-supervised treatment in California. We can’t give up now because those issues will not go away.

There is plenty to build on going forward, and I look forward to working with you to improve our drug policies for the good of all Californians. Keep an eye out for an email about how you can stay involved with the issues you care about through the Drug Policy Alliance Network.

Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager for Yes on 5, said, “Today we saw special interests overpower the public interest. California’s prison guards poured millions of dollars into stopping Prop. 5 and securing this victory for the poison politics of crime.”

The prison guards union, formally the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), contributed nearly $2 million to oppose Prop. 5 – nearly 75% of the advertising budget aimed at defeating the measure.

Dooley-Sammuli continued, “The prosecutors and prison guards who led the campaign against Prop. 5 got their way tonight – but they’ve really lost. The next step for our prisons will probably be a federal takeover. Prop. 5 was Californians’ last, best chance to avoid a takeover and make our own choices about how to address prison overcrowding. Now federal judges are likely to impose solutions that no one will be happy about.”

Opponents never acknowledged the cost savings projected for Prop. 5 by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst – $1 billion per year in prison operations costs, and $2.5 billion in capital savings in reduced prison construction, the Yes on 5 campaign said.

Dooley-Sammuli said, “Our opponents hid the true cost of defeating Prop. 5 – billions of dollars in prison construction and operating costs. In the next few years, as our prison budget grows from $10 billion per year to $15 billion or more, we will all look back at Prop. 5 and wonder why we did not put a cap on prison costs when we had a chance.”

Dooley-Sammuli added, “Although Prop. 5 lost today, this historic effort was not in vain. Prop. 5 presented a vision for a future in which we do more for young people with drug problems, and improve the way we provide court-supervised treatment in California. There is plenty to build on going forward.”

Prop. 5 was endorsed the League of Women Voters of California, Children’s Defense Fund - California, the California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, the California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California State Conference of the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, among many others.

By Allison Margolin

I have a client who faces nine years in state prison for selling a tenth of a gram of crack. Psychiatric problems have plagued him since age 3. He has had drug problems since his pre-teen years. Though he has suffered a prior conviction for sales, he has never been offered a drug treatment program through the court system.

This client, lets call him Fred, maintains his innocence. The evidence against him is that a police officer over thirty feet away allegedly witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction. When Fred was arrested, police allegedly found .13 grams of cocaine base in plastic wrap on him. Numerous others arrested by this officer have filed complaints against him.

This is a triable case, in that there is reasonable doubt that Fred committed the offense. But unless Proposition 5 passes, I can’t try this case. The prospects of Fred getting a long prison sentence are too great. If convicted he faces at least 6 years. If the voters support the Proposition, Fred can put on a defense. And even if he loses, he may receive dual-diagnostic, drug and psychiatric treatment, instead of prison or jail time.

Proposition 5 is a measure that expands the drug rehabilitation options currently available to both non-violent drug possession offenders and other offenders who have a problem with drugs, where courts feel rehabilitation should be tried before incarceration.

Currently, the California criminal code allows defendants to be diverted to treatment in two main ways:

through Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) and Proposition 36 (Prop. 36).

DEJ is available for certain drug possession offenders who have not suffered a prior drug conviction in the last five years. Prop. 5 would allow those who have one prior drug possession offense in the last five years to be eligible for Deferred Entry of Judgment. This expansion is positive, as one who successfully completes DEJ has no criminal record. For someone who is straddling the lines between society and the drug world, not having a conviction means more job opportunities.

Prop. 5 also enhances access to a Prop. 36-style rehab. Whereas only those convicted of a non-violent offense are currently eligible for Prop. 36, Prop. 5 would expand the program to others who have committed non-drug offenses but do suffer a drug addiction.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I can say with absolute confidence that drug addiction is more times than not the animus behind crimes like identity theft, shoplifting, and of course, drug dealing. To allow these defendants charged with non-drug possession crimes to participate in rehabilitation gives them a chance to address what is truly motivating their criminal behavior. Furthermore, it allows these defendants to have a chance to escape the collateral consequences, the hardships on their families and to the tax-paying society, of prison.

Too many lives are lost to the penal system in California because offenders do not meet the rigid eligibility requirements for DEJ and Prop. 36. These are lives that can be saved and turned around if the voters pass Prop. 5. There are so many Freds out there, so many stories like his, a reality that is truly horrific to see in the courtroom day in and day out. And there are countless families—mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters—who lose loved ones to prisons because they are addicted to drugs. Prop. 5 can put an end to this suffering by allowing offenders a chance to deal with their problems in a way that benefits both their lives and ours as well. Prop. 5 is compassionate, intelligent, and necessary. Vote yes on Prop. 5.

Allison Margolin is a criminal-defense attorney in Los Angeles and adjunct professor of law at the University of West Los Angeles Law School.

Los Angeles Times
Blowback
November 3, 2008

By Ethan Nadelmann

If Proposition 5 goes down to defeat on Tuesday, the five governors who lined up to condemn it Thursday will have won a Pyrrhic victory. Not one has offered an alternative to Proposition 5 for dealing responsibly with California’s prison overcrowding crisis, the exploding prison budget or the outlandish power of a union whose interests lie in incarcerating as many of their fellow citizens as possible.

Each of them has given lip service to the need for treatment instead of incarceration in dealing with drug convictions and other nonviolent offenders with drug problems. But not one of them has shown any willingness to take seriously decades of empirical research on what works best in reducing drug addiction, crime and recidivism.

This has always been an area of government action in which rhetoric drives policy. But what’s so depressing about this Gang of Five’s united opposition to Proposition 5 is their combination of dishonesty and myopia.

A duplicitous TV ad that features Sen. Dianne Feinstein and is paid for by the prison guards union, beer distributors and casino interests tell us that Proposition 5 will cost too much. But those ads do not acknowledge, cite or even bother to challenge the analysis of the state’s legislative analyst’s office. Estimated annual cost: $1 billion. Estimated annual savings: $1 billion. One-time savings in capital outlay costs: $2.5 billion. That makes Proposition 5 a wash on annual costs and a true bargain for taxpayers. In fact, it’s only the third ballot initiative in the last decade that contains quantifiable cuts to state spending. Only one of those ballot initiatives has passed: Proposition 36, California’s first treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative, which voters passed in 2000.

So why the effort to deceive voters?

It’s all about — no surprise — resources and power. Why is the prison-industrial complex rearing its fearsome head right now? Because Proposition 5 would effectively transfer $1 billion from prison and parole to treatment and rehabilitation. That means fewer jobs in a massive prison system now consuming about 10% of the state’s budget and more resources for programs proven to reduce drug abuse, crime and recidivism more cheaply and effectively than prison and parole.

The opposition to Proposition 5 is grounded in America’s tragic exceptionalism when it comes to incarcerating its own citizens. The United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population but claims almost 25% of the world’s incarcerated population. We rank, shamefully, first in the world in reported per-capita incarceration rates. But not one of those governors stops to ask why California, with rates of drug use and nonviolent crime roughly equal to those in other advanced industrialized countries, relies on incarceration at a rate five to 10 times higher.

Proposition 5’s opponents keep claiming, falsely, that the initiative would make it impossible to hold nonviolent offenders accountable. In reality, Proposition 5 is chock full of accountability, not just for the offenders who get a second chance to get their lives together but also for those charged with enforcing the laws. Ask why California has evolved from the state of higher education into the state of higher incarceration. Ask why the state has built just one new University of California campus but 21 new prisons over the last 25 years. It’s because the prison-industrial complex has exercised its political power to ensure that it is never held accountable — that its budgets grow unchecked and that its exercises of discretion and prejudice are never balanced by independent oversight and objective judgment.

Proposition 5 would provide just that balance. Its provisions incorporate several of the major expert recommendations on prison, parole and treatment diversion reform as put forth by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s hand-picked advisors, the Deukmejian commission, Schwarzenegger’s Rehabilitation Strike Team, the governor’s Corrections Independent Review Panel, UCLA experts, the Little Hoover Commission, the state Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections’ Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming, the VERA Institute of Justice and others.

That’s what ultimately makes Proposition 5 unacceptable to powerful vested interests within the political and criminal justice system. It dares to speak truth to power and take the politics out of criminal justice — which is why that motley crew of statehouse residents ganged up Thursday to condemn it. Now it’s the voter’s turn to lead.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance Network (www.drugpolicy.org), a major proponent of Proposition 5.

Prop 5: Yes

WHY: We believe that those people whose lives have been negatively impacted by drugs need rehabilitation more than punishment. Prop 5 will provide that.

On Tuesday, Californians have an unprecedented opportunity to transform lives and create lasting positive economic and social change. How? Vote “yes” on Proposition 5. Proposition 5 or NORA (California’s Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2008) takes money earmarked for prisons and instead uses that money to treat and provide recovery support for nonviolent offenders and youth with drug problems.

People in the grip of addiction create havoc — for themselves, their families, their communities, and for society as a whole. For decades the solution has been to lock up these offenders. America can now boast that we have more people in prison than any country in the world. Once released, with their addictions unchecked, it does not take long for the cycle of drug use and crime to begin again. So, we build another prison — and we incarcerate and the cycle continues.

Instead of building yet another prison, Proposition 5 challenges us to take the money budgeted for building prisons and instead treat the core issue and heal the problem, by offering treatment rather than incarceration. Proposition 5 would expand access to substance abuse treatment for young people and nonviolent offenders.

NORA will ensure that tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders receive the rehabilitation services they need for long term recovery and reduce the number of offenders being caught up in the overcrowded ineffective prison system.

As a person in long-term recovery from methamphetamine addiction I can attest to the power of treatment in helping to create true and lasting change. Once I received treatment for my addiction in 1997, my life changed remarkably — from chaos and dysfunction to stability and abundance. Once homeless, I now have a beautiful home. Once bankrupt, I now have flawless credit. My son has flourished in my recovery and is now attending his first year at Stanford University. Imagine where he would be if I had remained lost in my addiction? Drug treatment literally transformed our lives. I am not unique in my response to treatment, but I am unique in that I was able to receive drug treatment — rather than incarceration.

Incarceration exacerbates what treatment and recovery support can heal. Drug treatment helps people return to employment, pursue education, and become involved in the social activities that build communities and promote public safety. According to the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, every dollar spent on treatment in the community is estimated to return $18.52 in benefits to society. But in truth, the benefits of treatment are priceless. Please, help make a positive difference for children, families and communities all across California on Tuesday.

Vote “yes” on Proposition 5.

Tracey W. Lee
Vacaville

LOS ANGELES, November 3 – Today, the Children’s Defense Fund – California (CDF-CA) endorsed Proposition 5, a ballot initiative that Californians will vote on next Tuesday. If passed, Prop 5 would provide $65 million per year to counties to make drug treatment available to at-risk youths under the age of 18. Virtually no publicly-funded treatment is available now for young people.

“The Children’s Defense Fund supports Prop 5 because it would implement strong policies that would provide treatment and services to youths instead of arresting and incarcerating youth for minor drug offenses,” said Deena Lahn, Policy Director of CDF-CA.

“Putting more and more of California’s children behind bars costs taxpayers too much and isn’t an effective crime prevention tool. If we stop arresting children for problems that are more effectively addressed through early intervention and treatment, it will benefit every community across the state. Prop 5 is the right policy for California youths.”

Currently, only 10 percent of California youth who need treatment actually receive it. In 2006, there were more than 15,000 juvenile arrests for misdemeanor drug offenses. Low-income youths—frequently the group most at risk—are often first arrested and processed into the juvenile justice system before receiving any form of treatment; even then, youth programs are often inadequate.

Under Prop 5, parents, teachers and doctors could all refer young people directly to these health services without the need for a criminal justice intervention. Research shows that adolescent treatment is effective in reducing arrests, improving academic performance and keeping youth in school. Prop 5 ensures that the new system of care meets the full spectrum of youths needs, including family therapy, educational and employment stipends and more.

The Children’s Defense Fund—California joins the League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, Consumer Federation of California, California State Conference of the NAACP and National Council of La Raza, among others, in endorsing Prop. 5.

SAN JOSE, November 3– Bay Area legislators today announced support for Proposition 5, echoing the endorsement of the State Democratic Party. Highlighting the cost savings of treatment not incarceration programs, Assemblymembers Beall, Lieber and Leno called on voters to approve the much-needed treatment expansion and prison reform.

Assemblyman Jim Beall, of San Jose, said, “By failing to directly address the problem of addiction, California has taken a one-sided, punitive and costly approach – incarceration. Little funding goes to the most cost-effective approach that stops the cycle of addiction: prevention and early intervention for our youth. In this time of economic crisis, we need an effective approach to combat the disease of addiction rather than continuing to fund an ineffective incarceration-first policy.”

Assembly Member Sally Lieber, of Silicon Valley, said, “The state’s worsening prison overcrowding and ballooning budget deficits are not separate crises. They are intimately related. Until we address our failed prison policies, we will only see our budget problems increase. That’s why Prop. 5 is the right thing for California. It will usher in more effective and affordable responses to nonviolent drug offenses – and stop pouring taxpayer money down the drain of the bloated prison system.”

Assembly Member Mark Leno, of San Francisco, said, “California can’t afford to kick the can down the road any longer. If we don’t address our broken prison system, it will drain our state coffers at a time when we most need to spend cautiously. For better public safety and better use of taxpayer dollars, we need real prison and sentencing reform. Prop. 5 brings that reform to California just in time – when we really can’t wait any longer.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Prop. 5 will lower incarceration costs by $1 billion each year and save taxpayers $2.5 billion in reduced prison-construction costs. This doesn’t include savings related to reduced crime, fewer social services costs (e.g. emergency room visits, child protective services, welfare), and increased individual productivity.

By Stephen J. Maulhardt

I believe the Department of Corrections is at the center of the state budget crisis. Its budget has more than doubled in just the last four years. Prisons built to hold 100,000 are being crammed to hold more than 170,000. The Legislature has approved another $7 billion to build more facilities and the federal courts have taken over the healthcare portion due to CDCR mismanagement and propose to spend another $8 billion on medical facilities (including a prison hospital in Ventura County).

On average, California spends $46,000 per year per prisoner. California’s prison industry is breaking the bank. We simply cannot afford to lock up everyone with a drug problem. It is estimated that more than 70 percent of the prison population abuse drugs and alcohol. Many are in prison because they have an illness — they suffer from drug addiction. “Rehabilitation” programs in prison are nonexistent or a joke. I would like you to give special consideration to Proposition 5 — the Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act — because while it directs the state to spend money on drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, it more than pays for itself in real taxpayer savings in the short term and much greater benefit in the long term. It will save lives and reduce prison overcrowding. It will:

• Cut prison spending by $1 billion each year and cut prison building by another $2.5 billion.
• Reduce the numbers of nonviolent people locked up unnecessarily.
• Improve public safety by reducing recidivism.

I believe Prop. 5 builds on the enormous success of Prop. 36, California’s treatment-instead-of-incarceration law, that:

• Annually diverts more than 36,000 nonviolent drug offenders into treatment.
• Has saved California nearly $2 billion (net) since its adoption in 2000.

Tuesday, voters have an opportunity to promote alternatives to the costly and unsustainable prison industry and the unwinnable war on drugs. Please join me in saying yes to Prop. 5.

Stephen J. Maulhardt of Camarillo serves on The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 Statewide Advisory Group as a representative of the California Organization of Opioid Providers.

La Proposición 5 es otra herramienta más para rehabilitar a los drogadictos. Hoy en día hay muchos enfermos de la droga y el alcohol en el sistema penal que con el tiempo se enferman más cada día que siguen presos.

El mismo senador Barack Obama ha dicho en su campaña para la presidencia que los más afectados por las drogas y el alcohol son los latinos y los afroamericanos, y que debemos hacer lo máximo como modo de intervención para salvarles la vida.

El sistema judicial sí puede ayudar en la rehabilitación de los drogadictos por medio de esta iniciativa. Hay que votar por la Proposición 5.

Jaime Vega, Placentia, California

By Arthur R. Vinsel

Old arguments over treatment vs. punishment for drug addicts willing to try tough, rigorous recovery work have been shot down by reason, common sense and demonstrated successes, but in some minds, a judgmental hangover lingers.

Still, a mind-set persists that it’s a moral failing and sin - not the sickness of spirit and body the medical profession long ago recognized - and needs to be punished. This hampers humane approaches to problem-solving.

No recovering addict or alcoholic expects immunity from responsibility for our actions under the influence. We accept that addiction is no excuse for wrongdoing, though it may constitute an explanation.

Proposition 36, which garnered 61 percent of the vote in 2000, is “termed out” and will be replaced by Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offenders Rehabilitation Act, if voters approve. Proposition 5 would build on past successes, putting new teeth in provisions for failure.

This is a critical need, for in today’s economic climate, Los Angeles County faces a cut of up to 24 percent in its remaining Proposition 36 funding reserve. Other county budget reductions for alcohol and drug treatment are also pending. In a worst-case scenario, several nonprofit recovery programs may simply be forced to close.

Moreover, Proposition 5’s greatest benefit will be a $610million allocation enabling California counties to craft a system of juvenile recovery programs for those at-risk kids age 12 to 18, before they become enmeshed in crime and the court system.

Response to Proposition. 5, however, has been misinformation and scare tactics suggesting drug lords, violent criminals, child molesters and the like can sign on for rehab, then return to beachfront mansions or middle-class neighborhoods.

A potent coalition of law enforcement professionals and their wealthy Washington, D.C., lobbyist is aligned against Proposition 5, arm in arm with a token Hollywood celebrity. He should know better. Distinguished actor Martin Sheen, co-chair of the No on 5 campaign, and son Charlie (both in recovery) have distinguished themselves off screen for illegal chemical excesses in years past.

Sheen supports diversion, but advocates mandatory prison for even one slipup.

Since it began July 1, 2001, some 84,000 men and women availed themselves of Proposition 36 screening, referral, program placement and 34percent graduated, clean and sober. Detractors contend this figure is not a substantial success. Relapsers can get a second or third chance, but under stricter supervision. Law enforcement wants one relapse to put them in prison.

Drug and alcohol addiction is a disease. Do we punish victims of cancer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis and the like? We treat them - insofar as they can afford it.

Based on proven studies, society saves $7 for every $1 invested in recovery and addiction intervention. Currently, it costs about $27,000 a year to support each of the 177,000 men and women in California’s 33 prisons. They essentially have no recovery resources.

They pass the time behind steel bars and concrete walls where - as it stands now - there are no recovery programs available. Proposition 5 would initiate in-house addiction treatment as well as establish outside care centers for juveniles to keep them out of prisons.

Besides the juvenile care allocation of $610,000, Proposition 5 could cost as much as $1 billion for in-prison treatment. But a nonprofit state legislative analysis agency predicts this sea change in drug treatment can save $2.5billion down the line. No new prisons would be needed.

By comparison, at San Pedro’s licensed, nonprofit Beacon House residential recovery program, it costs about $12,000 a year to support each of its 120 residents.

Here are specifics to ponder:

Proposition 5 is the only ballot item that will save California money.

For those entering a prison-based recovery unit, Proposition 5 does not constitute a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” Judges and prosecutors retain jurisdiction on crimes other than the drug-use issues.

Nonviolent offenders given 18 months in an outside residential program in lieu of prison face even longer sentences for repeated relapses. Moreover, Proposition 5 tightens and streamlines probationary oversight of its clients.

In the spirit in which it’s conceived, Proposition 5 can do a great deal of good, costing money that will be spent one way or another anyway on society’s efforts to deal with drug addiction and its criminal fallout.

Just saying “No” is not the answer, either to youthful drug abuse or to Proposition 5, this newest approach to making a real difference in society.

Arthur R. Vinsel is a Beacon House media relations aide and a San Pedro free-lance writer.

To the Editor:

“The California Prison Disaster” (editorial, Oct. 25) offers a prime example of what happens when the prison industrial complex is unencumbered by any checks or balances. The only thing not mentioned in the editorial was that Californians will have a chance to approve a responsible solution on Election Day: Proposition 5.

This initiative, called the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, would increase treatment access for youth and nonviolent offenders, and reduce prison overcrowding. It’s also the only initiative on the ballot that would provide a significant net savings for taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the campaign to defeat Proposition 5 just raised millions of dollars from the prison guards union, the beer distributors association and Indian casino tribes with close links to law enforcement. So the state’s prison disaster will remain unsolved–unless or until California’s voters see what they’re really up against.

Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director
Drug Policy Alliance Network
New York

Arianna Huffington

Here is picture that sums up much that is wrong with American politics. Five governors of California, Democrats and Republicans, joining forces to oppose something that is indisputably in the public interest.

This is an image that could be repeated, with different faces, in region after region of our country, involving issue after issue. Public officials standing against the public good, with the disastrous results on display from Detroit to Wall Street. All suffering from the same destructive force: the power of entrenched special interests to cloud the vision of our leaders, causing them to thwart good sense, good legislation, and the will of the people.

In today’s version, we have Jerry Brown, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, George Deukmejian, and Arnold Schwarzenegger coming together to oppose Prop 5, a common sense ballot initiative that seeks to effectively and intelligently tackle the chronic problems facing California’s deeply flawed criminal justice system.

California’s prisons are a budget-busting debacle. There are currently more than 170,000 inmates crammed into prisons designed to hold 100,000 people. Around 70,000 of these prisoners are nonviolent offenders, with over half of them incarcerated for a drug offense.

A large part of the problem is a parole system the New York Times recently called “perhaps the most counterproductive and ill-conceived” in the U.S.. California’s recidivism rate is 70 percent — twice the national average. This stems in no small measure from the state’s insistence on treating paroled murderers the same way as paroled nonviolent drug offenders. They all spend 3-5 years on parole. This overburdens parole officers, who end up spending very little time with any of their charges — violent or nonviolent (According to the Times, 80 percent of California parolees have fewer than two 15-minute meetings with their parole officer per month.) Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep a closer watch on rapists and killers than on nonviolent drug offenders?

As a result of this dysfunctional system, prison costs have risen 50 percent since 2000, to over $10 billion a year — close to 10% of the state’s budget (and roughly the same amount California spends on higher education). It costs $46,000 a year to keep a nonviolent prisoner in the state behind bars. Is it any wonder California is gushing red ink?

Enter Prop 5, a ballot initiative that will reduce prison overcrowding, increase public safety, cut costs, expand drug treatment programs inside California’s prisons, and start the state’s first drug treatment program for at-risk youth.

Prop 5 is structured to build on the proven success of Prop 36, a law promoting drug treatment over incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders. It was approved by 61 percent of California voters in 2000, despite almost unanimous opposition from public officials. Since being enacted, Prop 36 has saved California taxpayers $2 billion — and graduated 84,000 people who, according to studies, are far less likely to become repeat offenders.

“Prop 5 finally addresses the twin tragedy of crushing prison costs on society and the revolving trapdoor of incarceration that stems from locking up too many nonviolent offenders,” filmmaker Gabriel London, who has documented the state of our prisons, told me.

Given all this, and the fact that a majority of the public favors low-cost treatment models over the high-cost incarceration model, passage of Prop 5 would seem like a no-brainer. Especially given its support from a wide-range of drug treatment professionals, good government advocates, and clearly-not-soft-on-crime law enforcement types such as former San Quentin warden Jeanne Woodford who, blogging on HuffPost, wrote of Prop 5:

Prop 5 may well be California’s last chance to bring about a solution to the many, intertwined problems in our criminal justice system… Incarceration of non-serious non violent drug offenders does not improve public safety. Treatment and accountability do. Prop 5 provides treatment and accountability. It is accountability for the drug user, the prison system, treatment providers, probation departments and the courts.

Yet Prop 5 is struggling because of a very powerful special interest: the prison guards union. It has funneled $1.8 million into the campaign to derail Prop 5.

For the guards, prison overcrowding means more overtime pay. So the state’s prison industrial complex has unleashed the full force of its financial power — funding an array of ads that blatantly mischaracterize Prop 5. Truth has gone out the window, replaced by overheated claims that the initiative is a “drug dealer’s bill of rights,” “a get out of jail free card” for meth dealers, and a law that will allow parents to abuse their kids and escape punishment.

Goodbye reform, hello fear. The special interests are, once again, overwhelming the public interest.

And, sadly, many politicians, many on the receiving end of prison guard contributions, have fallen in line. As Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager for Yes On 5, puts it: “The prison guards hold the keys to the California statehouse, so it’s not a surprise that those thinking of running for governor in 2010, like Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, and even Meg Whitman, have come out against Prop 5.” (Here’s Daniel Abrahamson, co-author of Prop 5, on his dealings with Jerry Brown.)

The truly disturbing thing about their opposition to Prop 5 is that not one of them — nor any of the governors at today’s photo op — has stepped forward with an alternate solution to the undeniable criminal justice crisis California is facing. A crisis so pressing that, if Prop 5 doesn’t pass, in all likelihood the federal courts will step in. On November 17, a three-judge panel will consider putting California’s entire prison system under federal control — a move that could require the state to spend an additional $8 billion to bring the system up to constitutional standards.

So to review: Prop 5 follows a successful model, will lessen over-crowding, will save a cash-strapped state billions, will reform a “counterproductive and ill-conceived” parole system, and will shift criminal justice dollars from incarceration to treatment — an effective approach favored by three-quarters of the public. Yet our leaders are opposing it, without offering any alternatives.

The drug war continues to be an electrified third rail in American politics. And political money continues to be a roadblock to real reform.

Don’t believe the hype. Don’t allow a sensible solution to be drowned by a torrent of money.

Vote Yes on Prop 5.

LOS ANGELES, October 31 – Governor Schwarzenegger has called a special legislative session on November 5 to try to shore up a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit. Advocates of treatment-not-incarceration call on voters to get a head start by passing Proposition 5 on November 4.

Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager for Yes on 5, said, “Our Governor ought to be ashamed of himself for going after schools. Prison spending is out of control, but he’s opposing the only reform that would actually cut state prison costs and prevent billions in new prison construction.”

Advocates accuse the governor of abdicating his responsibility and relying on a federal take-over to solve the prison problem. On November 17, a federal court will consider putting the entire $10-billion-a-year prison system under receivership. That would give the court authority to solve prison overcrowding on its own, using state tax dollars.

In 1999, California spent $4 billion on prisons. The 2008-09 budget sets aside $10 billion for the prison system. That spending is projected to reach $15 billion by just 2011.

Dooley-Sammuli continued, “The court has already taken the prison’s medical system under federal receivership and costs are spiraling out of control. If the state doesn’t get its house in order now and the feds take over, this crisis will get even more costly.”

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Prop. 5 will cut prison construction costs by at least $2.5 billion. With $2.5 billion, the state could fund: 37,500 elementary schoolteacher salaries; healthcare for 2 million California children without health insurance; nursing home care for nearly 95,000 elderly persons on Medi-Cal; and funding equal to 250% of all state firefighting efforts.

The LAO calculates that Prop. 5 will reduce the state prison population by at least 18,000 and the number of people on parole by 22,000. Overall, the LAO calculates that Prop. 5 will generate “savings potentially exceeding $1 billion annually on corrections operations.” Annual costs for Prop. 5 rehabilitation programs could eventually grow to $1 billion, says the LAO – making Prop. 5 cost-neutral on an annual basis.

By reducing the number of nonviolent offenders behind bars and on parole, Prop. 5 will slow California’s skyrocketing prison growth – which is currently increasing at three times the rate of the general adult population.

Click here to view a TV ad that talks about the cost savings that is running throughout the state.

Para Publicación Inmediata: 31 de octubre de 2008

Las principales organizaciones latinas de California y de toda la nación han aprobado la Proposición 5, que cortará $ 2.5 billones del presupuesto estatal, permitiéndole a California invertir en sus comunidades.

El Concilio Nacional de la Raza, el Congreso Latino Nacional, el Foro de Temas Latinos, y la Liga de Votantes Latinos, así como La Opinión, el periódico más grande en español de los Estados Unidos, oficialmente aprueban la Prop. 5 porque reducirá el uso de las drogas, disminuirá las disparidades raciales en el sistema de justicia criminal, y llevará a una California mas justa.

“La prisión no es la solución para los adictos, allí se gradúan de delincuentes en vez de recuperarse. Esta iniciativa les dará otra oportunidad,” escribió La Opinión en un editorial aprobando fuertemente la Prop. 5.

Residentes latinos están sobre-representados en el sistema correccional de California, donde constituyen el cuarenta por ciento de los presos y el cuarenta por ciento de las personas en libertad supervisada. La Prop. 5 les da rehabilitación en vez de la prisión a ofensores no violentos que usan drogas y a personas no violentas en libertad supervisada. Esto reducirá el uso de las drogas, el crimen, y la encarcelación desproporcionada de latinos. Además, la Prop. 5 ayuda a la juventud de alto riesgo, asegurando que estos jóvenes nunca entren a la cárcel en primer lugar.

Prop. 5 también garantiza que el tratamiento de la drogadicción este basado en la comunidad y sea apropiado para el idioma y la cultura de cada persona que califique, para asegurar que estos servicios sean accesibles a comunidades que no los tenían anteriormente.

En la década de los noventa, California construyo 21 prisiones pero solo una universidad pública. La Prop. 5 pone fin a esta tendencia alarmante; según la Analista Legislativa, la Prop. 5 ahorrará $2.5 billones de dólares en los costos de construcción de nuevas prisiones – dinero para la educación en vez de mandar jóvenes a la prisión.

Haga clic aquí para leer el editorial de La Opinión.