So two years into Jessica’s law, how is it working out?  The LA Times reports:

A state panel is urging the governor and legislators to change “Jessica’s Law,” saying its restrictions on where sex offenders can live are counterproductive and calling the nearly $25 million a year spent to house them a poor use of taxpayers’ money.

The residency restrictions, passed by voters more than two years ago in Proposition 83, have never been shown to prevent new crimes and may reduce public safety, the panel says…

…Barring sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other areas where children gather has driven many into homelessness, an unstable situation that can propel them back to crime, according to the [Sex Offender Management] Board…

…”It seems unwise to spend such resources as a consequence of residence restriction policies which have no track record of increasing community safety,” board members wrote.

This should come as a surprise to nobody.  Why?  Because in the runup to the 2006 election, we were warned that this was going to happen.

Here’s one example of reports that ran before the ‘06 election.  From the October 30, 2006 L.A. Times:

As Californians prepare to vote next week on Proposition 83, which would impose a similar residency ban, Iowa is becoming an example of the unintended consequences of such measures.

Prosecutors, police officials and even victims rights groups say the crackdown has backfired, driving some offenders into rural towns and leaving others grouped at motels, campgrounds, freeway rest stops or on the streets.

Many have simply gone underground, authorities say, with more than twice as many registered sex offenders now considered missing than before the law took effect…

“These guys are off the radar scope, and we’ve got no idea where they are,” said Bill Vaughn, chief deputy of the Polk County Sheriff’s Department in Des Moines.

All around the Hawkeye State, police and sheriff’s deputies say they are overwhelmed by the task of chasing down child molesters who violate the residency law. And although they don’t often pity sex felons, authorities say the house-hunting challenge faced by the ex-cons is almost insurmountable.

“When they call and ask where they can legally live, my response is, ‘Do you know anybody in Nebraska?’ ” said Des Moines Police Sgt. Barry Arnold. “It’s a nightmare.”

Iowa prosecutors agree. Their statewide association earlier this year declared the law a failure and asked the Legislature to pursue a different strategy to protect children from sex crimes.

The Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, representing victims, echoed that request. Executive Director Elizabeth Barnhill said Iowans are less safe now because sex offenders, facing banishment, are absconding in large numbers.

That’s right.  The Iowa Prosecutors Association AND the Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a group which represents sexual assault victims were AGAINST Prop 83.  The Iowa Prosecutors even warned Californians about the perils of Jessica’s Law before the ‘06 election.  These warnings were in all the voting materials and on the actual ‘06 ballot.

A year after the law was enacted, city governments started to complain about enforcement problems.  State Senator and Jessica’s Law author George Runner (R-Lancaster) put a statement up on his website dismissing the law’s critics.  Here’s our favorite part:

Distancing sex offenders 2,000 feet from schools, parks and other places where children gather is another contemporary idea, and one that California voters have embraced. Parents simply don’t want sex offenders living across the street from schools and parks. Again, a few cities have cried foul, claiming that it is nearly impossible to find housing with the distancing restriction and thus homelessness among sex offenders is sure to occur in abundance. But so far, the claims have been based on guesswork, not actual incidents of homelessness.

And even now, after Jessica’s Law has been discredited by everyone, Runner is still clinging to his twisted dream.   The LA Times reports:

Responding to the criticism that residency restrictions have no benefit to public safety, state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), an author of the initiative, said, “I do believe the general public would say a child molester should not live across the street from a school.”

Of course the general public would say that.  But if the general public later found out that it was safer to have a convicted child molester living across the street from a school in plain sight rather than camped out in the woods where no one can find him, one would hope that the general public would change their mind.

Or maybe not.  Before the 2006 election, voters also ignored this map which showed that registered sex offenders would be relegated to living in remote, hard-to-track areas (the Iowa problem) or the deserts and mountains (which are uninhabitable).  Actually, they probably did see this map and liked what they saw — this is precisely why things like Jessica’s Law should never be put to a popular vote.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, who endorsed Jessica’s Law saw this coming.  Earlier this week, before the LA Times story hit, his office issued this press release announcing that pursuant to another provision of Jessica’s Law, all 6,622 paroled sex offenders now wear an GPS ankle bracelet.

What the press release didn’t mention is that the GPS only applies to those 6,622 parolee, not the 80,000 registered sex offenders who have completed parole. The GPS is removed after parole is over, but the residency requirement lasts forever.

If you ever want to understand California’s budget problems, why the government is so dysfunctional, and how it needs to change, then you should watch this. These guys are surprisingly relaxed, straight-forward, candid, and funny-for-politicians. They explain the problems in plain language that’s easy to understand.  And most importantly, they discuss the importance of crafting policy that responds to California’s population growth — which never happens during a campaign.

Even though this event was 3 1/2 years ago, the problems with the budget process are exactly the same.  There’s much talk about the importance of re-districting which finally came to pass with the passage of this year’s Prop. 11 (although not with retired judges as these guys originally hoped, but with a the bi-partisan committee).

If you want to understand California, this is worth 59 minutes of your time.  Actually,  the first 13 minutes are introduction, so you can scroll through that if you want.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Public Policy Institute of California releases a new poll about all sorts of issues.  Of course, we’re most interested in the ballot prop stuff:  77% of those polled favor a system of “review and revisision to avoid legal issues and drafting errors.”  77% also favor “a time period in which the initiative sponsor and legislature try to reach a compromise solution before the initiative reaches the ballot.  84% favor public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns.  72% favor televised debates on initiatives. These are all excellent ideas.  [PPIC]

Esteban Nunez gets arraigned today.  Attack is being called “an attack of rage.” He was also arrested at his dad’s house. Something about this case against Esteban does not feel right…. [SacBee]

The answer lies in the basic rules of campaign finance law.  We found the perfect way to explain it to you in an easy-to-understand way — through the story of Humboldt County’s “Measure T.”

Ahhh… the sad tale of Humboldt County’s Measure T, which today was declared “null and void” in a settlement between the county and the two corporations who sued them (well, actually the lawsuit was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank that likes to pick fights with hippies).

Two years ago the voters of Humboldt County approved a ballot measure that prohibited all corporations from outside of Humboldt County from contributing to Humboldt County political campaigns (for both candidates and ballot measures).  Yeah, we know that this is about out-of-county money and not out-of-state money, but the principles are the same.  And yeah, we also know that there’s different rules for religions, but those don’t apply in Prop. 8 anyway, as we explain here.

Here’s how it works:

The U.S. and every state Supreme Court in the country have long held that for legal purposes, corporations and organizations are “persons.”  That means that a corporation or a business or an organization has the same constitutional rights as human beings.  The language of Measure T specifically stated that:

Courts have illegitimately defined corporations as “persons,” allegedly vesting corporations with constitutional protections and rights. The unconstitutional doctrines of “corporate personhood” and “corporate constitutional rights” illegitimately deny the people of Humboldt County the ability to exercise our fundamental political rights.

Unfortunately for proponents of Measure T, this language is what’s known in the legal world as “a total loser.”  For starters, the notion of “corporations as ‘persons’” is an area of law that’s been around since the wooden-teeth days, the voters of Humboldt County were not about to undo over 200 years of precedent.

Second of all, the U.S. Supreme Court and state courts have long declared that giving money to political campaigns is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.  Prohibiting  a corporation/organization’s right to donate money to a political campaign is the same as prohibiting a person’s right of free speech.

Now if you’re thinking that all this talk of fundamental rights and equal protection sounds vaguely like the Prop. 8 lawsuit, you’re correct, sorta.  Sure, there’s an argument to be made that Measure T and Prop 8 cases are the same because both involve ballot measures which tried to overturn a group’s fundamental rights and deny them equal protection under the law.

There are a couple of differences though.  1)  Prop 8 amended the California constitution, Measure T was just a county law and 2) The Measure T lawsuit was brought in federal court and they sued solely on federal constitutional grounds, Prop 8 is in state court.

(If this last part made no sense to you, check out our Prop. 8 lawsuit explanation for non-lawyers).

So is there any hope of getting out-of-state money out of ballot prop. reform?  We’re not sure yet, we’re looking into that as well as looking into spending limits.   We shall report backon that soon.