By Andy Furillo
Published: Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A

Stanford legal minds conceived the measure. A prosecutor from Los Angeles vetted it. The godfather of its original design is fighting it.

Come November, California voters will decide if it stands.

Proposition 36 gives the state’s electorate another opportunity to weigh in on California’s 18-year-old “three-strikes” law, the toughest career-criminal sentencing statute in the nation.

Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for offenders who commit a third felony – no matter how minor – if they have two previous serious or violent criminal convictions on their records.

Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential burglary would qualify as a strike.

The measure would enable an estimated 3,000 of the 8,873 prisoners serving 25-years-to-life terms in the state as of June 30 to apply for resentencing hearings. If their motions for new terms are granted, a good number of those 3,000 prisoners could go free. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates passage of Proposition 36 could save the state anywhere from $70 million to $90 million a year in reduced prison costs.

The initiative has had huge cash infusions from two sources.

Billionaire financier George Soros, the international hedge fund manager who has contributed millions over the years to change drug laws and other statutes he believes are too harsh, kicked in $500,000, according to the secretary of state’s records.

David W. Mills, a Stanford law professor and private investment manager, matched and raised the contribution. Mills, a co-chair of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, put in $878,000.

The money Soros and Mills contributed paid for the $1.4 million signature-gathering effort that qualified Proposition 36 for the Nov. 6 ballot.

In an interview, Mills, 65, said his involvement in California’s three-strikes law stems from his long-term interest in civil rights. It is Mills’ view that the sentencing measure’s “dramatic effect on poor people and African Americans” makes it one of the leading civil rights issues of the day.

“The notion I can live in a state in a country where we would send somebody to jail for 25-to-life for stealing a loaf of bread, a pair of gloves, a piece of pizza, for a gram of cocaine, or whatever, to me is incomprehensible,” he said.

Opponents of the measure include the California Police Chiefs Association; its president, Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel, signed the ballot rebuttal argument against Proposition 36, arguing that thousands of criminals would be released from prison. Top victims’ rights organizations, such as Crime Victims United of California, also have lined up to fight the measure.

So far, only the Peace Officers Research Association of California has contributed any major money to the anti-Proposition 36 campaign. The rank-and-file police officers organization contributed $100,000.

In 2004, Orange County businessman Henry T. Nicholas gave $1.9 million in the final days of the campaign to help defeat a ballot effort to weaken the three-strikes law. This year, Nicholas has signed the ballot arguments to fight Proposition 36 but so far hasn’t put his name on any campaign checks.

Another no-show has been the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which has historically backed the three-strikes law.

Drop in crime rate cited

Mike Reynolds, the Fresno photographer whose daughter was murdered by a repeat offender, has served as guardian of the three-strikes law since its 1994 birth.

In an interview, Reynolds noted steep declines in the California crime rate in the 18 years that the law has been in effect. He wonders why anyone would want to change it, and is angry at the thought of 3,000 career criminals getting out of prison.

To read entire story, click here.