Calling itself the California Public Safety Partnership, the group includes Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, and Sacramento County District Attorney Anne-Marie Schubert. “These reforms make sure that truly violent criminals stay in jail and don’t get out early,” Schubert told the L.A. Times.

California voters in recent years have rolled back some of the state’s tougher criminal justice laws.

In 2014, Proposition 47 downgraded various nonviolent crimes – such as certain drug offenses and property crimes – from felonies to misdemeanors. The money saved was allocated to crime-prevention programs such as mental health and truancy prevention.

Proposition 57, passed in 2016, allowed those convicted of nonviolent felonies to apply for early parole, in addition to allowing certain inmates to earn credits toward release by participating in rehabilitation programs. These inmates still must go before the parole board.

Both ballot measures passed by comfortable margins.

The proposed initiative would expand the collection of DNA samples to seven misdemeanors that were felonies prior to Prop. 47’s implementation. Currently, DNA is collected only for felonies.

The initiative also makes serial theft – stealing more than $250 or the equivalent after two previous similar convictions – a felony. Under Prop. 47, the current threshold for felonies in cases of theft is $950.

While the measure’s sponsors cite “serious problems being caused by recent criminal justice reforms,” it’s unclear the effect Props. 47 and 57 have had on crime. Violent crime rates for 2016 are up 4.1 percent from 2015, but they are still well below the peak of violent crime rates in 1992, according to the 2016 California Crime Reports. Meanwhile, property crime was down 2.9 percent

The ballot measure’s proponents must obtain 365,880 signatures by the end of April 2018 to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.

The 2017 session of the California Legislature may be remembered as when the criminal justice reform movement in America’s largest state lost its momentum.

The movement entered the session with a head of steam after winning majority support from the Legislature and then the public for Proposition 47 in 2014 and for Proposition 57 in 2016. The former measure reclassified dozens of “nonviolent” and “nonserious” offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The latter made it easier for nonviolent felons to win parole.

This year, the same rationale that civil liberties groups, progressive think tanks and minority organizations offered for Propositions 47 and 57 was invoked in seeking sweeping statewide bail reform and a pilot program allowing drug addicts to inject themselves in safe settings in several cities and counties. That rationale: California’s criminal justice system is not only far too punitive, it focuses too much on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation.

State Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, led the push for putting sharp limits on the state’s money bail system in favor of a system that largely trusted suspects without serious criminal histories to not go on the lam. They argued that California’s highest-in-the-nation bail requirements were unnecessary to get the accused to show up for trial and had the effect of destroying lives of suspects by forcing them to spend months in jail, unable to post 10 percent of their bail and secure a guarantee from a bail bondsman.

The fact that more than half the people in state jails are there not because they had been convicted of crimes but because they can’t post bail resonated not just with those who saw bail laws as unfair but with those who saw the system as wildly expensive.

This prompted optimism from Hertzberg in an interview with the Los Angeles Times before the 2017 session began: “Now you have a whole host of groups on both sides of the aisle looking at the cost and fairness of the system,” he said.

But the high point for the reform push came on May 31, when Hertzberg’s SB10 passed the Senate 26-11. A day later, the Assembly rejected AB42, Bonta’s identical bill, on a 35-37 vote.

Supporters of the measures expressed frustration that the governor waited until late August to offer support – and then only with the proviso that the bills be taken up in 2018, not in the closing days of the 2017 session. But it’s an open question whether Brown could have muscled the measures to passage. While other local and state governments have reported success with bail reform, Maryland’s adoption of no-cash bail reform last year has won wide attention for its troubled start. The Washington Post reported in July that the number of trial no-shows had more than doubled under the new system.

No to ‘government-sanctioned drug dens’

The other proposed reform made similar halting progress before being put aside for possible reconsideration in 2018. AB186 by Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, would have established safe areas in a handful of cities and counties for drug users to inject themselves without fear of being charged with crimes, among several provisions. Drug law reformers argued that this would reduce the carnage from the opioid crisis by making it easier to treat overdoses and by getting addicts in touch with health care professionals. The program would lapse in 2022.

But law enforcement groups voiced sweeping objections to the law, saying it would create “government-sanctioned drug dens with no requirement that participants enter treatment,” in the words of a state Senate analysis, among many criticisms.

The bill passed the Assembly on June 1 with 21 votes – the bare minimum for approval – before being rejected by the Senate on Sept. 12 after gaining only 17 of the needed 21 votes.

Not only has it been a disappointing year for the lawmakers and civic leaders behind the recent push for sweeping reforms of California’s criminal justice system, their achievements are under harsh fire in Los Angeles County.

Last December, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, and state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Los Angeles, proposed to largely scrap cash bail on the grounds that it wasn’t essential to getting people to show up for their trials, was destructive of individuals’ lives and would sharply reduce costs and crowding at county jails. But while one of the two related bills the lawmakers introduced passed the Senate on mostly party lines, the other stalled on the Assembly floor, only getting 35 votes in support. The bail bonds industry has strong relationships with both parties, especially in urban areas where bail bond agents are often significant donors.

On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced their support for the measure – but for review and passage in 2018, not the remaining few days of the current legislative session.

The support of Brown and Cantil-Sakauye was depicted as good news by Bonta and Hertzberg. But the governor’s and chief justice’s delay in getting on the bandwagon and the Assembly’s coolness to the concept showed that bail reform never enjoyed as much support as two other recent criminal justice reform measures. Adopted by state voters in 2014, Proposition 47 reclassifies several nonviolent crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies for those without criminal records involving crimes of violence or related to guns. Approved in 2016, Proposition 57 made it easier for those guilty of “nonviolent” crimes to win parole.

Reforms face intense blowback in L.A. County

Now, however, enthusiasm for these reforms has faded in the largest county in the state and nation.

In Los Angeles County, some law enforcement and women’s groups are upset with Proposition 57 over how many of the crimes it considers “nonviolent” involve considerable violence, including types of sexual assaults.

But many local leaders, politicians, law enforcement members and citizens are furious over the effects of Proposition 47. They say it amounts to a “get out of jail free” card for drug addicts who no longer face incarceration for their crimes but who face no punishment when they don’t honor requirements they meet with drug counselors. Anecdotes about addicts being arrested over and over and over without consequence have been common in police circles for more than two years. Similar stories abounded in a harsh October 2015 Washington Post analysis of the early effects of Proposition 47. It concluded the well-meaning state law kept addicts out of jail, but not out of trouble.

These concerns led Los Angeles County supervisors to vote 3-0 on Aug. 15 to set up a commission to examine “the challenges and opportunities” created by Propositions 47 and 57 and AB109, a 2011 state law that “realigned” criminal justice by having those convicted of many “low-level” crimes serve their sentences in county jails instead of state prisons.

The reforms have been the focus of anger over two gun murders on Feb. 20 in Los Angeles County, allegedly committed by convicted felon Michael C. Mejia – one of a family member, the other of Whittier police Officer Keith Boyer. Mejia had been released from state prison 10 months before the killings and the Los Angeles gang member reportedly committed several parole violations without being sent back to state prison before Feb. 20.

After the killings, Whittier Police Chief Jeff Piper and the Los Angeles Police Protective League blamed AB109 and Proposition 47 for making it easier for Mejia to avoid being returned to state prison for breaking parole.

Reformers said Proposition 47 had nothing to do with Mejia’s treatment. They said that while AB109 changed how Mejia was treated after being released from prison, it did so by assigning responsibility for his oversight to the Los Angeles County Probation Department – not the state corrections department.

But the argument that the county was blaming state reforms for its own failings never took hold. The day after officer Boyer’s death, Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell said state reforms were “putting people back on the street that aren’t ready to be back on the street.” He said his jail system had so many dangerous inmates that it amounted to a “default state prison” – undermining claims that reforms would have positive or benign effects on local communities.

Nearly 10,000 inmates could leave California prisons within four years, another consequence of the state’s long struggle with the judicial system over the way it incarcerates convicts. 

“As the state prison population comes close to exceeding a court-mandated limit, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is pursuing new regulations that aim to get more inmates paroled more quickly over time,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The proposed rules, originating from voter approval of Proposition 57 in November and unveiled [March 24], would allow ‘nonviolent’ felons to first seek parole at the conclusion of the base term for their primary offense, before serving additional time for other charges and enhancements that can add years to their sentence.”

A vote’s consequences

Through Prop. 57, new regulations were slated to come into effect instituting a credit system for inmates hoping to reduce their sentences. “The main regulation is the credit earning system, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” KXTV noted. “For milestone completion credits, an inmate can earn them when they complete a specific education or career training program that’s also attached to attendance and performance requirements. Prop. 57 increases the amount of time an inmate can earn for these types of credits from six to 12 weeks per year.”

“Rehabilitative Achievement Credits are where inmates can participate in approved self-help groups or other activities promoting the rehabilitating or positive behavioral changes in an inmate. Inmates are able to earn up to four weeks of these credits annually. The last are Educational Merit Credits where inmates who successfully complete and achieve a GED, high school diploma, college degree or alcohol and drug counseling certifications.”

Working the numbers

Although the state’s prison population is closing in on the court-mandated limit of around 116,000, the new regulations must still be approved by California regulators. “If that happens, parole eligibility would change April 12,” KSBY noted. “There would be a public comment period. The early release would be phased in starting May 1, while the public review is underway. Final approval is possible by October.” In another shift, the Associated Press reported, the rules “would let the state phase out a long-running program that currently keeps nearly 4,300 inmates in private prisons in other states.”

That regime came under criticism last year as the federal government withdrew similar efforts. “California has transferred prisoners to private institutions, some of them in other states, for more than five years to relieve overcrowding in state prisons, but state, and local, use of them is beginning to be questioned,” the Chronicle reported last year. “One Bay Area lawmaker has called for the state to stop sending inmates to prisons far from their families or California inspectors, and another legislator is moving to stop cities and counties in California from contracting with private prisons to hold federal immigration detainees.”

Parole push

Continued pressure to limit action on some rules could come from law enforcement. “Police and prosecutors opposed the move for easier parole, arguing it would put dangerous offenders back on the streets too soon,” Voice of America recalled. “The new rules also change the process that prosecutors and victims use to object to early parole, doing away with lengthy formal parole hearings in favor of written statements. Prosecutors say victims have the right to be heard before any decision for parole is made.”

The new rule on parole “remains the top concern for the California District Attorneys Association,” San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, the group’s president, indicated to the Associated Press. “Under the changes, prosecutors and victims would have 30 days to object in writing to the earlier paroles. It’s a much different process than the hours-long hearings used to consider parole for life-term inmates such as followers of cult leader Charles Manson, for instance, and the governor will have no role in the largely administrative decisions.”

Proposition 57 — the victorious November ballot measure sponsored by Gov. Jerry Brown — continues to spark controversy over its loose definition of “nonviolent” crimes.

The proposition won easy approval despite harsh criticism from district attorneys around the state. The measure writes into the state Constitution guarantees that those convicted of “nonviolent crimes” can be eligible for early parole if they behave well and take part in rehabilitation programs.

But the measure was crafted rapidly in what critics likened to the judicial version of “gut and amend,” transforming what was originally meant to be a ballot initiative reforming juvenile justice into an expansive measure with far-reaching reform goals. The revision was approved by the California Supreme Court despite a stinging dissent from Justice Ming W. Chin who said failure to subject the measure to normal thorough reviews set a poor precedent and made it more likely to be poorly drafted.

Chin’s point was underscored when it came to the public’s attention through the Brock Turner case in Stanford that under Proposition 57, the former college athlete’s sexually molesting an unconscious female student was considered a “nonviolent” crime — among many sex crimes considered “nonviolent” because of Prop. 57’s reliance on crime category labeling dating back to 1976.

Brown: Trust parole officials to protect public

The governor’s counter was that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would never prematurely parole someone guilty of a violent sex crime. But many state lawmakers aren’t persuaded, especially given the corrections agency’s history of scandals and problems.

Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, wants protections against possible early release of sex criminals and other violent felons written into law. She told the Los Angeles Times she is pushing a bill with that goal in hopes of sparking a public debate on what crimes should be added to the list of those technically considered “violent” by the state, starting with violence against children and police officers.

“If you put yourself in the position of a victim in any one of those crimes, you will say, ‘That was violent because that affected me physically and emotionally,’” Bates told the Times.

Bates isn’t the only lawmaker seeking changes.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Roseville, wants cruelty to animals, crimes targeting older people and the kidnapping of children with the intent of using them as prostitutes added to the list.

Assembly members Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, and Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, want all types of rape involving people incapable of giving consent branded as violent crimes.

There is also likely to be interest in adding assault on a domestic partner to the list.

State budget says no early parole for sex offenders

Brown has dismissed criticism of Prop. 57 in his public comments. But the 2017-18 budget Brown released in January contains a de facto response to critics. It explicitly noted that sex offenders would not be considered for early parole.

That’s still not good enough for many district attorneys, who say parole decisions can be challenged in court because of Prop. 57’s language.

Unless Prop. 57 is revised before the 2018 gubernatorial campaign revs up, it is likely to be an issue in that race.

Proposition 57, which amends the California Constitution to make it easier for some felons to win release from state prison, coasted to victory Tuesday, winning more than 60 percent of the vote in initial statewide tallies and giving Gov. Jerry Brown a triumph on an issue — criminal justice reform — that he sees as crucial to his legacy.

The Brown-orchestrated, well-funded Yes on 57 campaign crushed lightly funded opponents, led by the California District Attorneys’ Association. A ballot measure description that used technical, arcane definitions to say the proposition only applied to “nonviolent” felons made victory close to a sure thing. District attorneys’ argument that the definition included many crimes involving violence, including sexual violence — while factual — got little traction.

But for Proposition 57 to be the policy triumph that Brown envisions, it will require improved performance from a state agency that’s faced frequent criticism from oversight agencies, judges and activists for decades: the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Under the ballot measure, the corrections department will be directed to give sentence credits to inmates for progress toward rehabilitation as judged by behavior, educational achievements and other factors. The credits are awarded after a formal, documented evaluation process.

With the high-profile problems the corrections department has faced because of overcrowding and prisoner health care so poor that it led to the intervention of a federal judge, officials can deflect blame. A punitive “three strikes and you’re out” justice system overfilled prisons, and governors and legislators balked at building new facilities and adequately funding prison medical needs.

Corrections department rapped for rehab, parole woes

But a review of the Office of the California State Auditor’s records show far-ranging critiques of the corrections department on many other issues as well. Since 2006, the state auditor has issued more than 50 official evaluations of state government performance in which the corrections agency is cited. Most are critical, including two audits that involve tasks exactly like or very similar to those that Proposition 57 expects the agency to handle competently.

A 2011 report looked at Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions, or COMPAS, a software program that officials said would help them identify inmates most likely to be successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into public life.

The report said COMPAS was not used to evaluate all eligible inmates, despite initial promises; was not implemented consistently at the 12 “reception centers” where decisions are made about which prisons should receive new convicts; and faced resistance from corrections officials who didn’t think it was worth their time. The audit said there was a lack of transparency with how COMPAS was implemented and a lack of accountability as to whether it really worked in increasing rehabilitation of prisoners.

A 2008 report said the corrections department regularly ignored state law when processing prisoners for parole. When an inmate is paroled, a discharge review report is required in which parole agents argue for or against release; their recommendations can be overturned by supervisors. Auditors found such reports were not on record for “4,981, or 9 percent, of the 56,329 parolees discharged between January 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008.” They cited concerns that the violent criminal histories of some of these parolees was not considered before their release.

The audit also found examples of the agency breaking its own guidelines in cases in which supervisors overruled parole agents’ recommendations and ordered release of inmates “without documenting the reasons for their decisions.” It also found evidence that supervisors had unilaterally revised discharge reports prepared by parole agents.

The corrections department mostly rejected the 2011 criticisms on its rehabilitation evaluation program. It accepted and agreed with the 2008 report on the need for 100 percent compliance on discharge reports and on the need to “prohibit unit supervisors and district administrators from altering discharge review reports prepared by others.”

The 50-plus audits citing the corrections agency since 2006 can be found on the state auditor’s website: https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/agency/22

They’ve been two of California’s biggest stories for months: the simmering anger over the light sentence given in early June to Brock Turner, a former Stanford swimmer, for sexually assaulting an unconscious fellow student in early 2015, and Gov. Jerry Brown’s push for Proposition 57, a far-reaching ballot measure that would speed the parole process for those convicted of “nonviolent” crimes.

But the crime that Turner committed is one that Brown’s ballot measure labels “nonviolent.” It appears that it wasn’t until Associated Press reporter Don Thompson wrote a 984-word story last Friday that this angle was covered in the news sections of California’s daily papers. Thompson’s summary:

A November ballot measure backed by Gov. Jerry Brown would allow earlier parole for thousands of California inmates, but critics say it could result in the very situation that led to public outrage in the case of former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner.

The proposal is aimed at controlling overcrowding in state prisons and reining in costs, and is limited to nonviolent offenders. But in California, “nonviolent” is broadly defined.

It applies to certain rapes and sexual assaults, such as Turner’s conviction, along with vehicular and involuntary manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence, exploding a bomb with intent to injure and other crimes.

Because of that, the ballot measure could mean less time in prison for people like Turner, prosecutors say. The one-time Olympic hopeful swimmer was released Friday after completing half of a six-month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a trash bin near a fraternity house hosting a party.

Many already were upset that the law allowed him to avoid hard time.

Yes on 57: Corrections, parole officials can block release

While some California opinion pages and writers covered the Turner-Proposition 57 link — most prominently Dan Walters with his Aug. 8 column in the Sacramento Bee — other journalists appeared reluctant to connect the dots. A Nexis hunt of U.S. newspapers using “Brock Turner and Proposition 57” showed no news coverage before the AP report. One possible reason is that Sacramento reporters thought that the case a Yes on 57 spokesman offered in the Associated Press story was credible: Either Corrections Department officials, parole authorities or both could block the release of a sexually violent convict.

But going forward, that explanation isn’t likely to stop leaders of the anti-57 campaign — the California District Attorneys Association — from invoking Brock Turner over and over again. And the extent of anger over Turner’s case could help reduce Gov. Brown’s biggest advantage in this fight: his huge war chest. He entered the 2016 campaign season with $24 million in two accounts.

In late June, the district attorneys group indicated it had little money for ad buys and would rely on getting the word out about Brock Turner being labeled “nonviolent” by the governor’s measure. It took two months, but it finally happened with the AP account, which the wire service touted as its “Big Story” of the day last Friday. The headline the Daily Post online newspaper based in the Palo Alto area used over the AP story: “Measure may let rapists out early.” The No on 57 campaign may build momentum with fund raising if such headlines continue.

At the least, there will also now be public pressure on a long list of California Democratic politicians — starting with Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Attorney General Kamala Harris, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom — to explain their view on whether what Brock Turner did should be labeled a “nonviolent” crime.

Many of these politicians voiced support for legislation inspired by Turner’s short sentence that was approved by lawmakers and sent to the governor last week. It mandates that prison time must be served by individuals who sexually assault an intoxicated or unconscious individual.

But Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and many other high-profile Democrats who sought the law continue to defend it. They hail it both for freeing up room in the Golden State’s long-overcrowded prisons and for moving away from a punitive criminal-justice status quo exemplified by both the state Legislature’s and state voters’ adoption of “three strikes and you’re out” measures in 1992 mandating that three-time convicts be locked up at least 25 years.

Now, however, Prop. 47 is coming under new criticism that can’t be blunted or turned away by talk of social justice. It has to do with a problem endemic to California’s direct democracy: Ballot measures are sold to voters with promises that often don’t come true.

In 2014, the measure’s advocates told Californians that savings from releasing state inmates would free up  “hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which would be spent on truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services,” using language from a report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. The claim was cited prominently in the official ballot argument for Prop. 47 and repeatedly in debates and interviews over the initiative.

Prop. 47’s savings a fraction of what was predicted

The California Department of Finance, however, says that never happened. Instead, in its official calculations for the 2016-17 budget, it predicted savings of just $29.3 million. Aware that the number would be a huge letdown to social service advocates, the governor and the Legislature arbitrarily inflated the amount to be granted to their programs in spring 2017 to $67.4 million.

But even with the boost, that’s a third of the low end of “hundreds of millions of dollars” that voters were told would go to help the needy.

The LAO doesn’t agree, issuing a report specifically challenging the $29.3 million figure. The document says the estimate is “about $100 million” low.

But in a recent Sacramento Bee story, the Brown administration said the LAO’s estimate depended upon a false assumption: that without Prop. 47, the state would have to pay to house more than 5,000 inmates in “contract beds” at expensive non-state facilities in California, Mississippi and Arizona.

Under Prop. 47, it is the Finance Department that makes the final call on how much money is judged to have been saved and is thus available for the social programs touted as benefiting from the ballot measure.

But this big picture doesn’t sit well with many lawmakers, starting with Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, and advocates for low-income residents.

State finding undercuts crime reformers’ credibility

The Brown administration’s position on Prop. 47’s savings has the potential to undercut the governor’s push for his own criminal-justice reform measure this November, Proposition 57, which would make it easier for “nonviolent” criminals in state prisons to gain parole.

The measure is already likely to be very controversial because the ballot language pushed by Jerry Brown and accepted by state Attorney General Kamala Harris classifies several categories of sexual attacks as nonviolent, as detailed on the website of the California District Attorneys Association. This includes the 2015 attack on an unconscious student by then-Stanford athlete Brock Turner, a case that has drawn national attention because of fury over the light sentence Turner was given.

Prop. 57’s path to adoption could be further complicated if its critics can point to Prop. 47’s unmet promises and say that in California, criminal justice reform advocates have a credibility problem. Disappointed social services advocates such as Aqeela Sherrills, an activist who lobbied for Prop. 47’s passage, are likely to help make the case.

“We pass an important ballot initiative, we change the law and we change the game to reallocate the resources,” Sherrills told the Bee. “Then they start playing with our money again. I don’t understand. I was like, ‘Man, no.’”

Now a much more relatable, explosive controversy looms over the proposed state constitutional amendment — one that threatens its passage and could buffet the U.S. Senate campaign of state Attorney General Kamala Harris and damage Brown’s reputation.

The ballot argument that Harris accepted for Brown’s measure depicts it as a benign proposal to bring common sense to parole decisions by allowing “parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense.”

But according to the California District Attorneys Association, the list of “nonviolent felonies” touted by Brown and accepted by Harris includes crimes of sexual violence — specifically the ones committed by then-Stanford athlete Brock Turner when he sexually violated a passed-out fellow student in January 2015. This screen shot from the CDAA website gives specific examples.

This is unlikely to sit well with the vast cross-range of people who are furious with Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky’s decision in early June to sentence Turner, formerly a member of the Stanford swim team, to six months of imprisonment — much less than the six years sought by prosecutors.

The ruling quickly gained national and international attention. The letter Turner’s victim wrote to him became an Internet sensation. Judge Perksy faces an unprecedented campaign from Bay Area residents who vow to never serve as jurors in his courtroom. Citing the Turner case, members of the California Legislature have moved to toughen sexual assault laws.

The Proposition 57 debate seems likely to eventually merge with the debate over the fairness of Brock Turner’s sentence and whether sexual assault laws should be made much tougher. So far, at least, leaders of the California District Attorneys Association have hesitated to make an explicit connection between the two matters.

But that seems likely to change in coming months when Brown uses his hefty campaign war chest to push his agenda. The Brock Turner case appears to be tailor-made for district attorneys who complain that the media didn’t read the fine print on the governor’s initiative before their initial coverage of it early this year.

Last Friday ex-Gov. and USC Downey Prof. Dr. Arnold Schwarzenegger (USC actually made him both a professor and a doctor) presided over a symposium at his USC Schwarzenegger Institute (actual motto: “Advancing Policy, Not Politics”). The main theme, according to the report by Joel Fox, was Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger’s political reforms:

“For his part, Schwarzenegger said neither major political party supported the reforms. However, he believes they have already proven successful. He said redistricting and the open primary have changed things in California. He pointed to Republicans who voted for immigration reform and some Democrats who were trying to undo environmental regulations that hurt business.”

Well, we’ll see. The reforms might turn out right. But so far we have the experience only of one campaign, that of 2012, behind us. Usually such large reforms take a decade to assess. And as I noted in an earlier post, the 2014 campaign will be dominated by Republican assaults on Obamacare.

As to Republicans voting for immigration reform, the legislation will be postponed at least to 2015 or after, as Adam O’Neal reported on our site. And neither Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger, nor the GOP congressmen, nor almost anybody, has read the the entire bill, S. 744, which is 867 pages of governmentese.

Here’s an example from Page 65:

17 (ii) EXCEPTIONS.—The discretionary 
18 authority under clause (i) may not be used 
19 to waive— 
20 ‘‘(I) subparagraph (B), (C), 
21 (D)(ii), (E), (G), (H), or (I) of section 
22 212(a)(2); 
23 ‘‘(II) section 212(a)(3); 
24 ‘‘(III) subparagraph (A), (C), 
25 (D), or (E) of section 212(a)(10); or 66

Is that the compromise Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger is talking about?

As to Democrats undoing environmental regulations, that likely has nothing to do with Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger’s reforms. More likely, it’s the typical fissures that develop within a party when it obtains a supermajority. With no real enemy, they fight among themselves. Democrats, including Gov. Jerry Brown, also are realizing that a lot of tax money will flow in if fracking is allowed, albeit heavily regulated. Wayne Lusvardi has reported on that here.

Recall the recall?

Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger’s best movie and his autobiography both are titled “Total Recall” But Fox reports:

“Schwarzenegger said his goal was to get things done and he never considered ideology or partisan politics. He claimed never to have asked a potential political appointee about his or her party registration and he told of crossing from the capitol to a nearby hotel to defend his hiring of Democrat Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff to some Republican leaders who wanted her fired.

“ ‘I looked around and said, “Did somebody rewrite the rules?” Because last I checked the governor made appointments, not the party,’Schwarzenegger said.”

That’s funny! Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger, as usual, completely distorts what happened. Few would have objected if he had made his chief-of-staff a competent moderate Democrat such as Bob Hertzberg, the former Assembly speaker.

The problem with Kennedy was that she was the former cabinet secretary of Gov. Gray Davis, whom voters recalled just two years before for because, among other things, he ran up a $40 billion deficit. Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger was put in power in the recall election precisely to reverse Davis’ polices and clean house of Davis appointees. Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger treated the voters, to use a line of his at the end of “Commando” as “juszt bodiez.”

Of course, those voters then went on to re-elect him in 2006, so perhaps they deserved him.

The budget

This also is ridiculous:

“However, he admitted he failed to find common ground on budget issues because his political opponents did not support ‘my philosophy’.”

That’s not what happened.

What happened was that he missed a chance to fix the budget permanently by putting a restoration of the Gann Limit on the March 2004 primary ballot. That action was urged on him by then-state Sen. Tom McClintock, and by yours truly in numerous editorials in the Orange County Register.

The Gann Limit allowed the budget to increase only at the rate of inflation plus population growth. It worked great in the 1980s, preventing budget deficits. Then voters were tricked into repealing it in 1990. And the rollercoaster of budget follies began. In good times, like today, the budget is flush with cash from high income and capital gains taxes. In bad times, such as the recent Great Recession, revenues plunge and the deficits mount, leading to calls for tax increases.

The March 2004 primary was a prime time to bring back the Gann Limit. Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger was at the height of his popularity as governor. Voters were following him. But instead of a real reform that would have fixed the state’s budget problem, meaning he would not have had to deal with budget deficits for his seven years in office, he punted. He put on the ballot Proposition 57, mislabeled the “Economic Recovery Bond Act.” It borrowed $15 billion for 30 years.

In the “Argument in Favor” in the election pamphlet, Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger promised:

“The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will consolidate the deficit and ALLOW CALIFORNIA TO GET ITS FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER — WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.” [Capitalization in original.]

McClintock warned in the rebuttal:

“Proponents say this won’t raise taxes. Where do they think the money is going to come from to pay back $15 billion in loans plus billions more in interest?”

Now almost 10 years after hoodwinked voters passed Prop. 57 by 63-47, McClintock was right and Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger wrong. The phony real estate boom of the mid-2000s made it look like prosperity was here, especially in California and other “sand states.” Then the boom went bust in 2007-08, crushing real estate values and state finances. The massive deficits returned. In 2009, Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger signed into law a record $13 billion tax increase.

As I have warned for 26 years, bonds are future tax increases.

And the Prop 57 debt still is out there, part of what Brown calls the “wall of debt” the state owes. Tom Dresslar, the communications director for Treasurer Bill Lockyer, told me the state still owes $4.6 billion from Prop. 57. Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger is long gone, but taxpayers still are paying for his folly.

Busting the budget

As to Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger and his “philosophy” on the budget, I remember the year the budget first leaped above $100 billion, for fiscal year 2006-07. When Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger complained to the Legislature that the number was too high, they cut a little from it and sent it back to him. He complained that they still spent too much — then added $1 billion more!

Here are the general-fund budget numbers for the key middle years of his governorship:

2004-05 $79.8 billion
2005-06 $91.6 billion, up 15 percent
2006-07 $101.4 billion, up 11 percent.

Did your paycheck increase that much during those years? Basically, his budget “philosophy” was the same as the Democrats’: spend, spend, spend.

No wonder, when the crash came in 2007-08, the deficits again rolled up to $40 billion and Prof. Dr. Schwarzenegger had to cut spending; and because he didn’t cut spending enough, he raised taxes. All because he didn’t bring back the Gann Limit when he could have.

The next time they have one of these symposiums, they should invite McClintock, now a U.S. representative, and yours truly to totally recall for them what really happened.