See it here: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/pdf/sa2006rf0001.pdf

At a first glance, the new one does not appear as drastic as the original (it makes “second strike” or “third strike” sentences apply only to new serious or violent offenses and states that if a person has two prior serious or violent and commit a non serious or violent felony the maximum sentence for the new felony is doubled). It also provides for resentencing of three strikers serving indeterminate terms for non-serious or non-violent offenses.

There has also been a “law enforcement” initiative dealing with three strikes. It is way too complex to summarize here. You can find that one at:

http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/pdf/sa2006rf0005.pdf

I’d love to hear all your thoughts.

Steve M.

We remember how Prop 66 was funded by a millionaire dad who wanted to spring his 3-strike son early.

Opponents of the New Prop 66 should be able to beat this Prop like a bongo drum by stressing the arm-long rap sheet of serious, violent felonies this Prop declassifies as 3-Strike material.

In fact, the phrase “arm-long rap sheet of serious, violent felonies” should be worked into every opposition advertisement; “Assault with a deadly weapon,” should be strobed across the screen.

That having been said it’s all about whether opponents can muster more funding than proponents. It is incredible the extent to which voters are swayed by sheer quantity of campaign funding.

Kudos to Patterico, who through public awareness played a real part in helping defeat Prop 66, and who I am sure will have no small part in helping defeat the New Prop 66 as well.

This new assault on Three Strikes must be defeated.

Chuck Nickel’s analysis (and yours) is very similar to my own admittedly uninformed opinion about the effects of the proposal.

As you know, I emailed some three strike experts (including yourself and Chuck Nickel) with my concerns about the proposed proposition’s minor change Penal Code Section 667(d)(1).
I wondered whether this change was the result of sloppy drafting (i.e., they wanted to insert “serious and/or violent” before the word felony wherever it appeared regardless of context) or whether it was deliberately inserted so that its proponents could argue that the crime does not qualify as a prior strike unless it was on the serious and/or violent felony lists at the time of the conviction (i.e., no convictions prior to 1994 would qualify, none of the crimes added by proposition 21 would qualify unless the conviction occurred after proposition 21 was effective).

To update you on that issue, Chuck Nickel called me and said that he suspected it was sloppy drafting and felt that something more blatant would have to be written into the proposition to change the rule that serious and/or violent prior convictions predating “three strikes” are counted as strikes. Chuck Nickel is the expert and I will gladly accept his opinion unless and until we see evidence that proponents of this proposition are lying in wait much like Prop 66’s proponents were (See Patterico’s “Smoking Gun emerges on three strikes initiative” post).

Keep up the good work!