NO ON 5

California needs a thoughtful, thorough revision of its criminal
justice system. Instead, voters in November will face Prop. 5, which
would make already-muddled drug laws even more incoherent. Voters
should reject that course.

Prop. 5, The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, would expand
programs to divert drug offenders to treatment instead of prison or
jail. But the measure reaches far beyond drug programs, and voters
should be skeptical about its ambitions.

Does the state really need a new bureaucracy to oversee parole and
rehabilitation efforts? Why should the Board of Parole Hearings have
29 members instead of 17? And why is a provision to ease penalties
for marijuana possession buried in this initiative?

Such questions illuminate Prop. 5's crucial shortcoming. It would
make wide-ranging changes to state law with no consideration of how
those provisions fit into an overall state criminal justice policy.

The state needs comprehensive reforms of criminal sentencing and
parole, for example. But Prop. 5 would provide more of the episodic
tinkering that has made the state's sentencing laws incoherent. And
fixes to the parole system should derive from an overall vision, not
haphazard changes made at the ballot box.

The idea of diverting addicts from prison to drug treatment programs
has promise, if handled properly. But Prop. 5 ignores the lessons of
Prop. 36, the 2000 ballot measure that set up a smaller drug
diversion program. The state's watchdog Little Hoover Commission in
March pointed out that Prop. 36 suffered from a lack of
accountability, along with an inflexibility that constrained its effectiveness.

Instead of fixing those flaws, Prop. 5 would expand them. The measure
would create a new, three-tiered program for nonviolent drug
offenders. The first tier would be even more lenient than Prop. 36,
which would become the second tier.

The third track would equate to the state's drug courts -- a proven
program that couples close supervision with sanctions such as jail
time for failures. But this track would only be for people with five
or more offenses. Prop. 5 would give offenders many chances to fail
before requiring real accountability.

And the measure completely fails to address the Little Hoover
Commission's central criticism of the state's addiction policies: a
disorganized, unaccountable drug treatment system with no focus on
results. Building on that shaky foundation asks for failure.

The state's legislative analyst says Prop. 5 could cost the state
more than $1 billion annually. That cost might be balanced by savings
of more than $1 billion annually by diverting people from prison. And
the measure might eventually shave $2.5 billion off future prison
construction costs by requiring less space.

Maybe. But the measure definitely will require the state to spend
$150 million in the current fiscal year and $460 million in 2008-09
for drug treatment -- when the state faces a $15.2 billion deficit.

And voters should not mistake savings for sensible policy. Just
because Prop. 5 might save money does not mean it offers effective reforms.

Voters suspicious of long, complex initiatives will find plenty to be
skeptical about in Prop. 5. That instinct is correct: Prop. 5
deserves a no vote.