Suit Claims Prop. 21 in Violation of Law
By Bob Egelko/AP

The League of Women Voters and youth advocacy groups asked the state Supreme Court on April 20 to strike down Proposition 21, claiming that the wide-ranging juvenile crime initiative violates the state Constitution’s ban on ballot measures that cover more than one subject.

The measure, approved March 7 by 62 percent of California voters and implemented immediately, extensively rewrites state laws on three separate subjects: gangs, the juvenile justice system, and adult sentencing, said American Civil Liberties Union lawyers in court papers.

The initiative, 13 pages of fine print on the ballot and 43 pages in normal type, contains a “dizzying array of changes in both the juvenile and criminal justice systems,” despite a ballot title referring only to juvenile crime, ACLU attorney Robert Kim said at a news conference.

“Increasingly we see extremely long, complicated measures covering a number of marginally related issues placed on the ballot,” accompanied by campaigns of “sound bites and brief summaries” that leave the public ill-informed, said Anne Henderson of the League of Women Voters.

In reply, Matt Ross, spokesman for the Yes-on-21 campaign organization, Californians to End Gang Violence, said the suit merely showed opponents “upset about how the election went and trying to overturn the will of the people.’

But Kim said enforcing the single-subject rule actually ensures that the will of the public was accurately reflected, by barring multifaceted initiatives that offer voters an all-or-nothing choice.

The single-subject limit was approved by state voters in 1948. It has been used to strike down three initiatives, most recently last December, when the state Supreme Court removed from the ballot a Republican-sponsored measure that would have cut legislators’ pay and turned legislative reapportionment over to the court.

A single-subject challenge was unsuccessful against another prosecution-sponsored measure, in 1982, that contained provisions on evidence, insanity, sentencing and school safety, among others. Ross said Proposition 21 is narrower than that initiative and should survive court review.

Proposition 21, which was qualified for the ballot in a campaign led by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, allows prosecutors rather than juvenile court judge to decide whether youths aged 14 to 17 are tried as adults for serious crimes.

It also limits judges’ authority to refer convicted youths to treatment or probation; requires adult prison sentences in most cases for 16-year-olds convicted in adult court; eliminates loosely supervised probation; restricts pretrial releases, and reduces confidentiality of juvenile hearings and records.

Gang-related provisions include broader definitions of the people, crimes and organizations subject to increased punishment for gang activities; mandatory six-month prison terms for gang-related misdemeanors; death sentences for adults convicted of gang-related murders, and police registration of people convicted of committing crimes for a gang.

The measure also adds numerous crimes, most of them unrelated to juveniles or gangs, to the list of “strike” offenses requiring longer sentences for repeat offenders. Other crimes that already were strikes, including unarmed robbery, are reclassified as violent crimes, further increasing their sentences.

The lawsuit said the three-strikes provisions were an especially glaring violation of the single-subject rule because they were inconspicuous in the text, were not clearly described and were not mentioned in any of the ballot materials.

The suit said voter confusion was made worse by state ballot labels that described few of the measure’s provisions and varied between counties. The ballot measure failed to reflect recent changes in juvenile law and, in some sections, differed from the initiative that was circulated for signatures, the suit said.