Social justice on ballot scores some victories, suffers some defeats
Why should suspects with money be able to leave jail while the gears of justice grind, while those without money are stuck behind bars?
Should skin color, sex and ethnicity be factors in public college admissions, and who gets public jobs and contracts?
Why should criminals who’ve been given probation instead of jail time be allowed to vote, while parolees – who did prison time and are finishing their sentences on the outside – are forbidden from voting?
California voters wrestled with ballots chock full of complicated social justice issues on Nov. 3, amid unprecedented racial reckoning and heightened awareness of historical wrongs. While election results are not yet final, voters appear to have delivered a very mixed bag of decisions:
No on considering skin color in public decision-making. No on eliminating cash bail. No on tougher criminal sentencing. Yes on allowing parolees to vote. Yes on redirecting money to social services. Yes to the Los Angeles County District Attorney candidate who promises major reform.
“The criminal justice measures that passed in California, along with George Gascon’s projected win (in the L.A. D.A.’s race), are incredibly good news and aligned with the general trend in California over the past years to support criminal justice reform,” said Alicia Virani, associate director of the Criminal Justice Program at the UCLA School of Law, who was once a deputy in the Orange County Public Defender’s Office.
Brian Levin, professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Cal State San Bernardino, would agree.
“Voters were particularly concerned with redirecting the focus of the criminal justice system towards a less punitive approach, as increasing concern about institutional racial disparities are an overlay to any such any debate,” he said.
Karthick Ramakrishnan, professor of public policy and political science at UC Riverside and founding director of the Center for Social Innovation, said there might not have been a clear verdict, “but I think what you see is that Californians are supportive of advancing social justice. They see racism as a significant problem. But when it comes to particular solutions, if they have a problem with some component of an initiative, they just vote it down,” he said.
But there’s always a but.
“Some of the outcomes or projected outcomes on other ballot measures … are unfortunately a dismal reflection on where the state is at when it comes to social justice,” said UCLA’s Virani. “While criminal justice reform and transformation is needed, we also need a state that will think comprehensively about the structural issues that allow for the criminal justice system to target poor communities and communities of color throughout the state.”
Money, of course, played a tremendous role in this year’s proposition battles, with a record-breaking $785 million pouring in to support and oppose statewide ballot races. “One consistent message,” said Ramakrishnan, “is that money can make a big difference.”
Here’s a rundown.
Affirmative action
Proposition 16 would have overturned California’s present ban on considering race, ethnicity, sex and national origin in public decision-making. That official “color-blindness” began in 1996 with the passage of Prop. 209. Data from the Secretary of State had it losing by more than 10 percentage points on Wednesday.
Money: $19.9 million in support; $1.2 million in opposition.
This one left many observers a bit perplexed. “Exit polls say racism in America is one of the most important, or the most important, problem,” said UCR’s Ramakrishnan. “So then, why didn’t they support Prop. 16?”
There are actually many different reasons, including splits in the Latino and Asian communities and general voter confusion about what it would do. “There just wasn’t enough time for there to be more voter education on this issue,” and it was competing for attention on a very full ballot, Ramakrishnan said. But he expects the issue to be resurrected, and soon.
“It has been nearly 25 years since affirmative action was available in California, and so I see this as an important first step in restarting the conversation about racial equity beyond criminal justice reform. We haven’t yet had deep conversations in California about the inequities around wealth-building, employment opportunity, educational opportunity – I’d expect proponents of racial justice issues to continue pushing for greater awareness and education on the importance of thinking beyond the criminal justice system.”
Criminal crackdown
Prop. 20 flew firmly in the face of the zeitgeist of the times, toughening criminal sentencing options. It would have allowed offenses now classified as misdemeanors – specific types of theft and fraud, such as unlawful use of a credit card and vehicle theft – to be bumped up to felonies. It also would have added serial crime and organized retail crime to the books, allowing them to be charged as felonies; and would have required that some convicts submit DNA to state and federal databases. It was losing with less than 38 percent of the vote.
Money: $4.8 million in support; $20.5 million in opposition
Cash bail
Prop. 25 would have affirmed California’s place as the first state to end the use of cash bail for all detained suspects awaiting trials. The original legislation was described as a “transformational shift away from valuing private wealth and toward protecting public safety.”
Instead of cash bail – meant to give people an incentive to show up in court after they’re released from jail – risk assessments would determine whether people should get pre-trial release and under what conditions. They’d be categorized as low, medium or high risk, and those with a low risk of skipping out could be released; those with a high risk would stay in jail; and those with medium risk could go either way, depending on the court’s rules. It was losing with less than 45 percent of the vote.
Money: $13.4 million in support; $10.2 million in opposition.
“I think what you’re seeing in cash bail is an exception to a more general trend that favors reform that reduces racial inequality,” said Ramakrishnan.
Levin agreed. “The outlier may have been Prop. 25 which confused voters about bail assessments, as well as the split among some progressives,” he said.
Funding for services, not policing
The harbinger of things to come may be Los Angeles County’s Measure J, which harnessed public outrage over police brutality and the conviction that there must be a better way. It would require that no less than 10% of the massive county’s general fund – hundreds of millions of dollars – be spent on prevention, community programs and alternatives to incarceration. It was passing with 57 percent of the vote.
“Measure J is the only ballot measure of its kind across the nation, and we’re really happy that voters were in agreement that we need to make sure the priorities of our communities of color are brought to the forefront,” said Yes on J spokesman Scott Mann.
In a statement on Wednesday, Isaac Bryan, co-chair of Yes on Measure J, called it “the tipping point for justice not only in L.A. County but across the country.”
“For decades we have fought to change hearts, minds, and policy. Finally, our communities will have the resources to bring our freedom dreams to life. Finally, our communities will have the foundational investments in care and healing that they have long deserved. Finally, we will begin to question how much money we spend on incarceration and punishment when we could be funding opportunity. Today is historic. Today is beautiful. This is what we marched for this year. This is the type of transformative policy-making we have been calling for,” he said.
UCLA’s Virani said Measure J attempts to redress inequities by shifting budget, and thus policy, priorities towards prevention and redistribution of resources. “It is unfortunate that the state did not follow suit in this regard,” she said.
Others suspect it won’t be long until it does.
Money: $3.3 million in support; $3.5 million in opposition.
Parolee voting rights
Prop. 17, would restore parolees’ right to vote. California was one of only three states that required people to finish both prison and parole sentences before regaining the right to cast a ballot. It didn’t attract a lot of money or incite a lot of passion, and is winning by some 18 points.
Money: $1.4 million, total.
White reformer v. Black prosecutor
The race for Los Angeles County District Attorney was a head-turner: Former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, a White man, taking on incumbent L.A. District Attorney Jackie Lacey, a Black woman, for the chief prosecutor’s job. Gascón blasted Lacey for going too easy on police officers who shot and killed people, and promised a raft of reforms. He’s currently leading with more than 53 percent of the vote.
Money: More than $19 million
“Overall, the results of the state ballot initiatives and L.A. district attorney race demonstrate that those who so effectively organized protests had the perseverance to follow through at the polls – showing once and for all the historic transformational political reverberations of the Black Lives Matter movement,” said Levin of CSU San Bernardino.
Comments
Post a Comment