Posted on 10/31/2004 8:26:22 PM PST by SmithL
SACRAMENTO - With just days until Tuesday's election, support for a measure curbing the state's "three strikes" sentencing law is falling and giving momentum to opponents, according to a new statewide poll.
The San Francisco-based Field Poll released Saturday showed a significant change of heart among many likely voters in late October, resulting in a "late-breaking tide of no votes" on Proposition 66.
"As more and more people tune in on Prop. 66, more and more seem to be going to the 'no' side," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. "This is a very quick move."
The telephone survey of 1,086 likely voters Oct. 21-27 showed support declining from 58 percent to 55 percent in recent days and opposition almost doubling to 33 percent. Only weeks ago, nearly two-thirds of likely voters supported the measure and 18 percent were opposed. The poll, conducted in English and Spanish, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
Poll results showed almost certain defeat for Propositions 68 and 70 to expand casino gambling in California, and dwindling support for Prop. 62 to reform the state's election system. Prop. 62 would allow primary voters to choose among all candidates regardless of party and send the top two to November runoffs. Support for Prop. 64, which would limit lawsuits against California businesses, remained weak, through 31 percent of those surveyed called themselves undecided.
DiCamillo attributed the apparent change regarding three strikes to aggressive campaigning against the initiative by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and law enforcement officers. Schwarzenegger is appearing in television commercials opposing the measure and this week contributed $1 million from his political fund to the opposition effort. Thursday, he joined four former California governors -- Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Jerry Brown -- to rally voters against the proposed change.
Schwarzenegger has said Prop. 66 "would take the teeth out of the three strikes law and favor the criminals instead of the victims."
The ballot measure would revise a 1994-era state sentencing law to allow 25-to-life terms only if a felon's third conviction is "serious or violent." Existing law imposes 25-to-life terms for anyone convicted of a felony, even for shoplifting, if already previously convicted of two violent or serious felony crimes. Experts say the proposal would make several thousand inmates eligible for resentencing if their third strike is not for a serious or violent felony.
Supporters say it would restore fairness to state sentencing laws and save the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Billionaires George Soros and John G. Sperling recently contributed a combined $1 million to help pass the reforms.
DiCamillo said momentum regarding the business-backed Prop. 64 appears to be with its opposition. While slightly more of those surveyed said they favored it in recent weeks, "a very large proportion of likely voters is undecided," he said. "Usually, that is ominous for passage. If they're undecided going to the polls usually they vote no."
Business interests have spent nearly $13 million to help pass the initiative.
Proposition 66 is a terrible, terrible idea! I will be very happy if it goes down on Tuesday (along with other incredibly bad ideas like Prop 71, 72 and the millionaire surtax)
I WILL BE A LOT HAPPIER WHEN THIS PROP FAILS! This is a sick, disgusting attempt to manipulate the system for personal gain at the expense of every citizen of CA and beyond. If this thing passes 24,000 3rd strike criminals behind bars will be released within the next 12 months.
CA Ping
Another Soros funded assault on our republic going down in flames.
I'm no on 66 too.. Flipped two others to vote no as well. Talk to your friends.... some just toss the literature. Being honest here, there are measures I wait to study till the end... this time, I asked my friends (voting in the same area) for help... any advice, thoughts, gut feel?? NO. Well, it was like kicking a beehive.. everyone just got busy and started researching.. maybe it was the challenge, and a desire to help a friend.. I don't know, but in three days... we all had enough information to cast a more informed vote. it doesn't hurt to ask for help.. The Ballot materials are confusing. ~ We've all been so focused on the Presidential race, that the 'other stuff' get's back burner treatment sometimes.... at least for me.
For anyone who needs info on what the republican party is recommending on the propositions and judges, if you haven't gotten a flyer yet, call your local rep headquarters to get information on what the recommendations are.
Isn't Soros trying to legalize drugs also?
Makes sense he would want his best customers out
on the street buying his product.
Bumping your post! You're a lifesaver, yet again, my friend.
Poor Soros...looks like his friends will rot in jail afterall. Good.
valuable resource of info. against the stupid proposition:
http://www.whyamidead.com/why/
NO on 63 (new tax), 66 (gutting three-strikes), 67 (phone tax), 68 (casinos), 70 (casinos), 72 (biz health care tax)
YES on 1-A (protect local revenue), 59 (open gov't), 64 (stop shakedown lawsuits) and 69 (felon DNA database).
If you'd like to hear debates on the CA (and San Diego County) propositions, Roger Hedgecock (Rush's frequent fill-in) has the debates he hosted audio archived here. His picks are posted as well.
I got email from a New York acquaintance, a Democrat and secular Jew, asking me to vote yes on 71, the stem cell prop promising it'll "not raise taxes" and cure the lame and infirm, blah, blah.
My position is this: it's corporate welfare; CA can't afford $6 billion in bonds for a "maybe"; if Soros, Hollywood and Bill Gates want to pour money into embryonic stem cells they should leave the CA taxpayer alone and use their own private funds which, together, FAR exceed $6 billion. I also oppose it on moral grounds. NO on 71.
If you're in San Diego, please vote YES on Prop K to authorize the city to sell the land containing the Mt. Soledad Cross War Memorial and hopefully put an end to one man's 15 yr pursuit to destroy this landmark.
Wow, this is a great source! Thanks so much EATB!!
Prop 60A (McClintock says NO), (and I agree with his reasoning)
"Sounds good on the surface - sell surplus state property to pay for general fund spending. Here's my problem: when surplus assets are sold - and they should be - the funds should be used for the purpose for which they were raised. For example, Caltrans land was paid for by highway taxes. When it's sold, it should be used to build highways, not pay for this year's welfare increase."
Hey send a note to normsrevenge, he has been relentless in his posting of items on California.....
Thanks for additional notes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.