Proposition 6 has strong support from California law enforcement, including every sheriff in the state, the California Police Chiefs’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the Chief Probation Officers of California and rank and file police officers.
Here’s a sample of what California law enforcement has said about Proposition 6 in the past year.
“Proposition 6 wisely invests in probation. Young people who make mistakes but are not hardened criminals desperately need adequate resources to ensure they stop negative behavior and succeed in living by the rules. A strong effort at the probation level is a wise investment.”
– Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden
Modesto Bee: “Modesto police chief endorses Proposition 6”
Oct. 31, 2008
—
"They’ll say it’s a ‘lock em up, throw away the key’ ballot measure, and it’s not, frankly. In fact, the independent analysis says it will save money. It’ll reduce incarceration needs long-term. The analysis says if the prevention programs work and fewer people are arrested and incarcerated; there may be an ‘unknown net fiscal impact.’ ”
– Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness
KXTV, Channel 10: Oct. 28, 2008
—
“Through a balanced approach of punishment, intervention and prevention, Proposition 6 gives law enforcement the resources needed to cut down gangs at their roots and end the cycle of violence in our communities.”
– San Diego County DA Bonnie Dumanis
San Diego Union Tribune: “Local Law Enforcement Leaders Tout Prop 6”
Oct. 21, 2008
—
“Law enforcement leaders throughout California agree that the roller-coaster of state funding for public safety needs to stop. Proposition 6 puts the decision to support safe communities firmly in the hands of those who have the most at stake, the people of California.”
– Solano County Sheriff Gary Stanton
The Vacaville Reporter: “Law enforcers believe Prop.6 ensures safety”
Oct. 19, 2008
—
“Gangs aren’t just an inner city problem; rural and suburban communities like ours also suffer from the damaging affects of gang violence. As sheriff, I know local law enforcement has seen a dramatic increase in gang activity in the decade.”
– Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp
Eureka-Times Standard: “Vote Yes on Prop 6”
Oct. 14, 2008
—
“The state of our public safety system is in dire need of comprehensive reform and needs stable investments to ensure law enforcement is given adequate tools to protect our communities. … The Safe Neighborhoods Act initiative is a comprehensive solution to our current problems within the state’s public safety system.”
– Yolo County Chief Probation Officer Don Meyer
Woodland Daily Democrat: “Public Safety in Dire Need of Reform”
Sept. 21, 2008
—
“We must secure public safety funding so we can work locally to protect our communities and not rely upon certain legislators in Sacramento as they continue to demonstrate a lack of regard for public safety. That’s why I support Proposition 6, the Safe Neighborhoods Act, which protects and secures funding for local public safety programs and initiatives in any type of budget environment.”
– Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson
Modesto Bee: “Proposition 6 provides firm funding for local law enforcement”
Aug. 13, 2008
—
“(The Safe Neighborhoods Act) would keep lawmakers from tapping money set aside for public safety and probation; we just get hijacked every year and then wonder if they’re going to give the money back.”
– Shasta County Chief Probation Officer Brian Richart
Redding Searchlight-Record: “Law Enforcement looks to protect funding”
June 19, 2008
—
"This initiative will provide local law enforcement with badly needed revenues in order to sustain vital program. It’s tough on crime and eliminates loopholes for crooks. If we don’t have safe schools, neighborhoods and streets, little else matters."
– Monterey County Sheriff Mike Kanalakis
The Californian: “Monterey county Sheriff supports anti-gang initiative”
June 12, 2008
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
I have to admit that Proposition 6 remains as the only measure on the November ballot where I am not sure how I am going to vote.
Clearly ensuring that law enforcement has adequate funds to do its job is important. And this measure does that.
But my quandry is this… I have been vocally critical of Proposition 98 for locking in, by ballot box, funding for education. I have, in my criticism, said that ballot-box budgeting takes away the flexibility from the people’s elected representatives to prioritize funding in the state budget.
Aren’t I being hypocritical if I support Proposition 6? Wouldn’t I just be saying that ballot-box zoning isn’t the problem, as long as the people are locking in budget ed funds for causes with which I agree?
There is no doubt that the current crop of liberal legislators that run Sacramento have been lax in adequately funding law enforcement.
But ballot box budgeting sits wrong with me.
So I remain undecided.
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Using the initiative process is not the first choice for funding any program in California. But thanks to a Left-leaning Legislature, we are forced to take it to the voters to guarantee funding for local law enforcement so we can make real strides in fighting gangs and keep our neighborhoods safer.
As you know, every year the Democrats kick funding for local law enforcement around like a political football — as if public safety is an after-thought.
This year — during the budget conference — the Dems cut the funding down to zero but the Republicans successfully negotiated it back to $500 million, which was still a cut of $100 million from the previous budget year.
All told, state funding for local law enforcement has decreased by 12 percent in the past six years, when accounting for inflation.
Furthermore, the Democrats have and will continue to use the initiative process to push the Left agenda. Republicans must stand up for conservative ideas and values and that’s what Senator Runner has done with Prop 6-the Safe Neighborhoods Act.
While the media has focused on the increased penalties brought on by Prop 6, let me remind you that Prop 6 also creates accountability via the Early Intervention Accountability Commission, which will audit taxpayer funded anti-gang programs.
Prop 6 will deny bail to illegal aliens who are booked for gang related crimes, and Prop 6 will require CDCR to track incarcerated illegal aliens as a means for better reimbursement from the federal government.
Prop 6 will lower the cost of running county jails by giving counties with high incarceration rates the ability to convert existing county buildings into emergency jail facility (for low level offenders).
Finally, Prop 6 will crack down on gang members and other criminals who abuse taxpayer funded Section 8 housing by creating a grant program for counties to assist them with conducting annual criminal background checks on applicants (which is a federal law brought on by the Clinton Administration, but currently not practiced due to a lack of federal funding).
Jon, keep in mind, as the state grows by at least 500,000 million people a year, and as gang violence continues to trend upward, the California Legislature must fund local law enforcement if we are to gain any ground on fighting gangs.
But if history is any indication, the Legislature will continue to underfund local law enforcement — if they fund it at all. That’s why I urge you to vote YES on Prop 6. In doing so, you will send a strong message to the California Legislature that you believe public safety is government’s number one priority.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Why should the state fund local law enforcement at all? Shouldn’t local governments fund local law enforcement?
Why should someone in Bishop be taxed to pay for gang suppression grants in LA?
Just a thought…