CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS SWEEPING 'SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS' MEASURE

Prop. 6 Backer Faces Possible Prison Term

California's police and prosecutors are asking voters for a
guaranteed $965 million from the state each year and a slew of tough
new penalties, but an unlikely figure is championing their anti-crime
"Safe Neighborhoods Act" on the November ballot.

The man who paid to put Proposition 6 before the voters now faces a
possible 340 years in prison in a pair of indictments that accuse him
of backdating stock options, supplying meth and cocaine to friends
and prostitutes, and spiking colleagues' drinks with Ecstasy.

Broadcom co-founder and former CEO Henry Nicholas contributed $1
million to the campaign for Proposition 6, a sweeping measure that is
nevertheless receiving little attention. The initiative would create
more than 40 new crimes and penalties, tacking on a decade to gang
members' sentences and expanding the circumstances under which
juveniles as young as 14 could be tried as adults. Counties could
force public housing residents to complete annual background checks,
and bail would be denied in many cases to undocumented immigrants.

The measure was crafted as a crusading effort to fight gangs by the
authors of "Three Strikes" and "Jessica's Law." Its major financial
backer has since been saddled with a 21-count federal indictment that
also includes accusations of lies, fraud and conspiracy. The U.S.
Attorney's Office reports that during a flight on his private plane,
the embattled billionaire and others exhaled so much marijuana smoke
that the pilot was forced to don an oxygen mask.

"Obviously, he stepped in with us in the beginning and then after
that got himself into that legal battle," said Sen. George Runner, R-
Lancaster, one of the measure's chief backers. "The whole issue was a
bit of a surprise to us."

Runner said Nicholas has a history of supporting anti-crime
initiatives, following his sister's 1983 murder. He has also
contributed $4.9 million to Proposition 9 on the November ballot,
which would strengthen victims' rights.

Despite the irony of circumstances surrounding Proposition 6's chief
financial sponsor, California's district attorneys, police officers,
sheriffs and probation officers are lining up behind the campaign.
The measure calls for a virtually permanent $965 million funding
stream from the state's general fund for law enforcement -- a 33
percent increase over current spending that would grow by tens of
millions of dollars each year. The measure would require an
additional $500 million to build jails for all the prisoners snared
under the new provisions, according to the Legislative Analyst's
Office. Additional funds would also go toward juvenile justice
probation and GPS tracking devices. Prevention programs, according to
the measure's authors, would include $10 million for Police Athletic Leagues.

Runner and his wife, Sharon Runner, also a state legislator, co-wrote
this November's ballot initiative as well as the 2006 measure that
toughened restrictions on sex offenders. They acknowledge that
Proposition 6 could be costly to other programs that need funding as
California emerges from an unprecedented partisan deadlock over
managing a $15.2 billion shortfall.

"It's a very simple issue for voters -- do you prioritize money for
public safety in the general fund or don't you?" George Runner said.
"We believe public safety is the No. 1 responsibility of government."

Adding to the initiative's curious timing, the state's prisons are
already so crowded and ill-equipped, human rights violations have
prompted a federal court takeover.

Yet Proposition 6 supporters are undeterred, and local leaders are
among those championing the measure. In a recent pitch to Santa Clara
County supervisors, District Attorney Dolores Carr and Sheriff Laurie
Smith hailed the measure as vital for crime-fighting and combating
gang violence. Carr singled out praise for the provision that would
make hearsay admissible in court in some cases.

She pointed out the heft of the funding being sought, acknowledging
that "it certainly is a large amount and I understand why people are
concerned about it." But Carr added: "On the other hand, law
enforcement really does need a stable source of funding in order to
keep our communities safe."

Opponents say law enforcement agencies clearly need funding, but so
do schools, hospitals, firefighters and social workers. They also
accuse proponents of fear-mongering, noting that crime has been on a
steady decline for decades.

"Cops support it," said David Steinhart, a leading criminal justice
expert, "because it opens a pipeline to Sacramento funds the likes of
which they've never seen."

The California Catholic Conference also opposes Proposition 6. The
group of bishops concluded that while the initiative was introduced
in good faith, "it offers more of the same criminal justice policies
which have failed in the past -- and it will cost Californians
billions of dollars without increasing public safety."