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.

No details yet about the folks behind these initiatives.  We’re working on finding out all that out right now.  But here’s the test of the proposed laws:

The first initiative is the California Marriage Equality Act.  It repeals Prop 8.  It is sponsored by a group called “YES! on Equality“:

An act to repeal Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution; therefore provisions to be repealed are printed in strike-through text.

Section 1. Title

This measure shall be known, and may cited [sic], as the “California Marriage Equality Act.”

Section 2.  Section 7.5 Article I of the California Constitution shall be repealed, stricken, and removed as such:

Sec. 7.5  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in  California.

The second initiative replaces the word “marriage” with “domestic partnerships.”  There are two individuals sponsoring the initiative, but no details as to whether or not they are part of a larger organization:

Section 1:  Title.
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Domestic Partnership Initiative.”

Section 2:  Summary

The proposed measure calls for the term “marriage” to be removed from government legislation.  The State of California’s Law code would have “marriage” replaced with “domestic partnership,” while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same.  The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect.  Legally speaking, “Marriage” itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions.  Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8.

Obviously if the the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, then there’s no need for the California Marriage Equality Act, but the “Domestic Partnership Initiative” could still go forward…now that would be interesting.

For our take on the idea of replacing “marriage” with “domestic partnerships”,  check out our posts here.

We’ll do a full analysis of the argument once we read through the brief and analyze it (it’s 111 pages long — we’ll need a little time).  But the basic argument is that the California Constitution protects “inalienable” rights (rights that nobody can take away), since Prop 8 takes away the inalienable right to “liberty” and “privacy” it’s unconstitutional.  This is a broad big-picture, swing-for-the-fences kind of argument. 

Good for you Jerry Brown.  This almost makes up for your ridiculous war on alcohol-based energy drinks.

In other news, the Yes-On-8ers filed a brief opposing AG Brown’s argument (obviously).  The Yes-On-8ers also want to nullify the 18,000 pre-Prop 8 same-sex marriages.  Oh, and in March, guess who is going to argue the case to the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Yes-On-8ers:  Ken Starr. Yep, that Ken Starr. 

Prop 9 has a provision that the crime victim’s so-called “due process” rights do not apply if the victim is “a person in custody for the offense” or “the accused.”

By not extending Prop 9 rights to “a person in custody for the offense”, someone who is assaulted or killed  in jail or prison, neither he nor his next of kin have Prop 9 rights.  And hat happens if someone is a victim of police brutality while in custody and criminal charges are filed against the police?  Does the victim lose his Prop 9 rights because he was in custody at the time of the crime?

As to “the accused” not enjoying Prop 9 rights, there’s lots of problems.  The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The whole point of the trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.  By denying the accused Prop 9 rights, there’s an implicit presumption that the accused is guilty before the trial even gets underway.   This is especially troubling in cases where the accused claims self-defense. A self-defense argument raises the issue that no crime occurred at all, and therefore the alleged victim is not really a victim after all.

This denial of rights to certain classes of crime victimsis ripe for a constitutional challenge on the grounds that incarcerated and accused victim’s are denied equal protection under the law. To survive an equal proection challenge, Prop 9 proponents must show that there is a “rational basis” for the exclusion of these victims.  The only basis for this provision is emotionally-driven-mean-spiritedness and a desire for crime victims to assume the role of prosecutor, judge and jury.  There’s nothing rational about this provision of Prop 9.

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]