Harkey and Wyland are both running for the Orange County/San Diego County/Inland Empire Board of Equalization seat now held by Michelle Steel that is a good bet to remain in GOP hands. It has a slight Republican registration edge. Also expected to run are three Orange County pols: Democratic state Sen. Lou Correa and former GOP state lawmakers Tom Harman and Van Tran.

But the key to understanding Harkey's suit isn't her pending political fight with Wyland. It's her thin-skinnedness, if that's a word. Let's look at some of her dealings with the media that reflect her perception of a world in which she is an unjustly put-upon heroine:

'Totally unfair and extremely biased'

This is from O.C. Register political reporter Martin Wisckol's blog of Oct. 19, 2007:…

“Diane Harkey left me a phone message today (that was Oct. 17), saying the blog was singling her out and posting unflattering photos. You can see the two photos I’ve used of her here.

“I’m not that unphotogenic,” she said. “I think it’s totally unfair and extremely biased.”

Then came Martin's story of March 17, 2009, which showed Harkey had been misleading and inconsistent in describing her involvement with her husband's troubled financial firm.

Victim of 'slander'? Or trapped in denial?

At that time, I interviewed Harkey, who at that point represented a big chunk of northwest San Diego County, for a Union-Tribune editorial that was published March 22, 2009. Here's part of the editorial; the image is from an extensive website on the Harkey scandal:

 “… Her husband, Dan Harkey, runs Point Center Financial, an Aliso Viejo company that lends investors' money to land developers. It is the target of a Securities and Exchange Commission probe. It is also facing a lawsuit from 53 investors who say Dan Harkey used their money for dubious loans – and to fund his wife's rapid rise in Orange County politics. Campaign disclosure firms show Diane Harkey has spent $2.1 million in personal funds since 2004.

“However, the suit presents no evidence for the alleged diversion of money. An aide to Diane Harkey told The Orange County Register last month that the campaign funds came entirely from the wealth she had accumulated in a 30-year banking career. Both Harkeys said she had never worked for Point Center. …

“But a follow-up Register report said Diane Harkey had been listed as a Point Center official in state documents and in campaign disclosure forms for two political donations to other GOP candidates. Harkey's own 'statement of economic interests' said she received more than $100,000 in annual income from a rental property that happens to be Point Center's headquarters. She also appears to be backing away from her claim that she didn't use her husband's money for political purposes.

professional writing service

“Plainly, this matter deserves coverage. Yet in a phone interview, Harkey told us our questions amounted to 'slander'; that news accounts of the mess were all 'libel' written by journalists determined to 'massacre' her family; and that she was the victim of a sexist double-standard.

“Given the holes in her initial story, this is a startling approach for Harkey to take. … If she wants to clear her name, step one is to get out of the denial stage of her grief.”

Routine budget questions an 'unbelievable grilling'

I wrote more about Harkey in a March 23, 2009, blog item for the Union-Tribune:

“How is it possible Harkey managed to get elected to any job, much less the Assembly? She has no conception of her role; of the proper role of the media; or of her responsibilities to the media. I have another example to offer.

“Last fall, the U-T editorial board met with nearly two dozen candidates for state Assembly and Senate seats. I asked every last one how they would balance the state budget and was ready with follow-up questions seeking specifics if they offered vague answers or it's-that-simple Ross Perot-style sophistry. Guess who thought that amounted to unfair treatment? You got it.

“Last week, after I had an unproductive phone interview with her, I wrote Harkey to say I needed to get fuller answers so I could understand her position. Part of her response was to harken back to the candidate interviews: '… you have a personal bias in my case. I recall the unbelievable grilling you gave me when I interviewed with your editorial board.'

“I asked the same questions of everyone, with the same follow-ups to all the evaders. To Diane Harkey, it was an 'unbelievable grilling.'

“Here's the kicker: The U-T ended up endorsing her, and I wrote the editorial! Despite my 'bias'!

“South O.C. and Oceanside, you have my condolences. There doesn't seem to be much of a learning curve on display with your Assembly rep.”

Incumbent Steel probably regrets Harkey endorsement

Four years later, that still seems true. It's just strange for Harkey to think her scandal isn't fair game for her political rivals; that the amazingly personal details in her lawsuit against Wyland will play well; and not to realize that her lawsuit has put a vast spotlight on Wyland's remarks that might otherwise have been largely ignored.

Michelle Steel, the incumbent, also may be regretting endorsing Harkey on Sept. 5.

By Dave Roberts

If Proposition 36 passes, about 2,800 inmates who have committed multiple felonies and are serving sentences of 25 years to life could be released from prison or re-sentenced to lesser terms. Those criminals were sentenced under California’s “three strikes and you’re out” law, and committed a third felony that falls under the penal code’s non-serious, non-violent categories.

And that concerns Prop. 36 opponents, who spoke at a joint legislative safety committee informational hearing last month.

“The proponents of this initiative like to speak of the pizza thief or the baby formula thief or the bread thief that gets sentenced to 25 to life,” said Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, representing the California Peace Officers Association. “But it’s important to keep in perspective and remember that to get to that point where someone is eligible for a sentence of 25 years to life, they must have been convicted of at least two prior convictions of a serious and violent felony. So they have demonstrated not only a propensity for criminal behavior throughout their lifetime, but they have also demonstrated their own unwillingness to conform to the legal mandates of society.”

California’s three strikes law was enacted in 1994 with the passage of Prop. 184. It applies to criminals who have twice committed serious or violent felonies such as rape, robbery or residential burglary and then go on to commit a third felony, whether it falls into the serious or violent category or not. The minimum term is 25 years to life.

In the debate at the time, the pizza analogy was explained in a 1995 Los Angeles Times article, “Jerry Dewayne Williams was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life Thursday under the state’s ‘three strikes’ law for stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza.”

Currently, there about 9,000 third-strike criminals behind bars, and another 33,000 inmates have two strikes on their records, according to legislative analyst Brian Brown.

Contrary to popular belief, the 25-to-life sentence is not automatic for a third strike felony offense. Only 14 percent of three-strike offenders are actually serving 25-to-life sentences.

“Courts have significant discretion in this area,” said Brown. “Courts have discretion to dismiss prior strikes, or effectively to look at someone who might otherwise be eligible for a third-strike life term and say that in the interests of justice that individual should instead be sentenced to a shorter term. That’s usually done by dismissing one or more of the prior strikes. A person might be eligible for a third strike, but instead get a second strike at twice the normal term.”

Serious felonies

While Prop. 36 would provide similar leniency for many third-strike felons, it would not do so for those who have been convicted of rape, murder or child molestation. And it would still be up to a judge to decide whether a third-striker with a non-serious, non-violent third offense would have his sentence reduced or commuted. Those who pose a risk to public safety would not be eligible for resentencing.

The state budget could save $70 million annually for the first couple of years that Prop. 36 is in effect, increasing thereafter to $90 million annually, according to Brown. He cautioned that actual savings could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars per year, depending on how many inmates are resentenced and how many future criminals are convicted of third-strike felonies.

Jones countered that some of that cost would actually be shifted to the state’s 58 counties, which would be hit with the court and jailing expenses for the 2,800 criminals seeking resentencing. These costs would come on top of “the influx of 3,000 inmates to an already overburdened local detention population in each county that has already had to see early releases in many counties because of the realities of realignment,” he said.

But Jones is more concerned about the type of people who would be released under Prop. 36. Although it specifies that they must have committed a non-serious, non-violent third offense under the penal code to be eligible for early release, that still leaves many crimes that most people would consider serious and violent. These include elder abuse, child abuse likely to cause injury or death, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, injuring a peace officer while attempting to escape, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, sexual exploitation by a doctor or psychiatrist, felony spousal abuse, human trafficking, arson, stalking, threatening a witness or juror, or solicitation for murder.

“Those things, while they would defy our common sense definition of ‘non-serious, non-violent,’ are legally non-serious, non-violent,” said Jones.

Crime reduction

The sheriff argued that the three strikes law has been very effective, reducing crime by nearly 50 percent in the 15 years after it was enacted compared to the 15 years prior.

“That’s not a coincidence,” he said. “Crime has been down even with diminishing law enforcement resources during this period of time. Studies have shown that approximately six percent of the people are responsible for 60 percent of the crime. It only stands to reason that if you remove from society these six percenters, as I call them, you will have an impact on the over-represented and over-productive level of crime that they commit. That’s what three strikes has done successfully for almost 20 years.

“Let’s face it, in every society there’s going to be a group of people, a segment of the population, that chooses crime as a career. That’s their choice. We can do nothing about that. If we allow them to continue in that career unabated without consequence, without removing them from society and without protecting the rest of law-abiding society from them, that’s our choice. That’s why I choose to urge everyone to maintain and vote no on Proposition 36.”

District attorneys

Also speaking against Prop. 36 was Sutter County District Attorney Carl Adams, who is president of the California District Attorneys Association. Only a handful of county district attorneys support Prop. 36, he said.

The vast majority of DA’s who are opposed “want to remove the worst offenders from society for the sake of our communities,” said Adams. “And we want to do it no matter what it costs. And we want to do it no matter what the impact is on prison populations. As a matter of fact, if we are going to talk about prison reductions at all, these are the 9,000 people we want to keep in prison. This is the top of the list, folks. These third strikers are the ones we build prisons for. Because putting these people in prison protects our citizens, protects our communities and keeps other people from having to suffer that serious or violent felony for the third time in the criminal’s history.”

Arguments in favor

The strongest argument in favor of Prop. 36 was made by Elsa Chen, an associate political science professor at Santa Clara University who has been studying the effects of three strikes for 16 years. She argued that public safety would actually be improved by releasing third-strikers. This is because they are older on average than most prisoners and less likely to commit crimes when they get out. In addition, by taking up space in overcrowded prisons, they pressure authorities to release younger prisoners who may be more likely to return to crime after they’re released.

“Therefore, implementing Proposition 36 is unlikely to lead to higher rates of crime,” said Chen. “In fact, its passage might free up space for more serious and violent offenders by not filling up our prisons with aging non-serious, non-violent offenders.”

Other benefits of Proposition 36, according to Chen, include: 1) Reducing racial disparities in sentencing wherein African Americans are 47 percent more likely to be sentenced to three strikes than whites. 2) Reducing geographical disparities where district attorneys and judges in counties with a higher proportion of Republicans or Latinos are more likely to impose three strikes sentences.

But, unlike other Prop. 36 proponents, Chen acknowledged that three strikes has led to a decrease in some crimes, although not the nearly 50 percent reduction that Jones and others claim.

“Three strikes laws in general appear to be associated with slightly accelerated declines in robbery, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft,” she said. “But there was no effect on murder, rape or aggravated assault.”

But her arguments and those of other Prop. 36 supporters did not persuade Senator Tom Harman, R- Huntington Beach, to abandon three strikes.

“I’m absolutely convinced that it’s working,” he said. “It’s what the people want. I am a little skeptical of the fiscal analysis suggesting there may be substantial savings. I kind of doubt that’s really going to happen. It’s the old story: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We’ve seen a 50 percent reduction in our crime rates in California. Yes, there have been somewhat similar reductions in other states. But I see no reason to try to modify the existing law and try to make it a little more lenient. Let the local DA in the various different counties do it that way if that’s what they want. I don’t think we need a statewide change to this law, which has had such a dramatic effect. The people that weren’t discussed too much here today, the victims both past and future, are of great concern to me. If we can do something to help prevent additional crimes from being perpetrated on future victims I’m fully supportive of that.”

Passage of Prop. 36 looks likely. An Oct. 21 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll shows 63 percent in favor and 22 percent opposed. An Oct. 11 California Business Roundtable poll shows 72 percent support.