California Proposition 34, Abolition of the Death Penalty Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 34
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Death penalty
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

' California Proposition 34 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 6, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with a maximum life sentence without the opportunity for parole; applying the abolition and new sentencing retroactively; and allocating $100 million to law enforcement for rape and homicide investigations.

A "no" vote opposed abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with a maximum life sentence without the opportunity for parole; applying the abolition and new sentencing retroactively; and allocating $100 million to law enforcement for rape and homicide investigations.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 34
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,974,243	48.05%
No		6,460,264	51.95%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

While Proposition 34 was defeated in 2012, Judge Cormac J. Carney invalidated the state's death penalty on July 16, 2014. The ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court, which held that the legal precedent of federal habeas corpus was not applicable to the case because Judge Carney used arguments for legal doctrine that did not exist at the time of the relevant death penalty inmate's conviction.

Overview

Proposition 34 would have abolished the death penalty as the maximum sentence for persons found guilty of murder and replaced it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Proposition 34 would have applied retroactively to those on death row. Proposition 34 would have also required those sentenced to life to work while in prison and subtract from their wages restitution for victims and fines. It would have also allocated $100 million from the general fund to law enforcement to investigate homicide and rape cases.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 34 was as follows:

“

Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. • Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. • States that persons found guilty of murder must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with their wages subject to deductions to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. • Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

State and county savings related to murder trials, death penalty appeals, and corrections of about $100 million annually in the first few years, growing to about $130 million annually thereafter. This estimate could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars, largely depending on how the measure is implemented and the rate at which offenders would otherwise be sentenced to death and executed in the future. One-time state costs totaling $100 million for grants to local law enforcement agencies to be paid over the next four years.

Support

Website logo of the "Yes on Proposition 34" campaign

Supporters

• Gil Garcetti, the former district attorney of Los Angeles
• Jeanne Woodford, former Warden of San Quentin State Prison
• Jennifer A. Waggoner, the president of the League of Women Voters of California
• Antonio R. Villaraigoa, the former mayor of Los Angeles
• John Van de Kamp, the Attorney General of California from 1983-1991
• LaDoris Cordell, a trial court judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court
• Rev. Gerald Barnes, bishop of the Diocese of San Bernardino
• The California Catholic Conference of Bishops
• The American Civil Liberties Union
• California Democratic Party
• California Nurses Association

Arguments

• H. Lee Sarokin, a retired federal judge, said, "I've always said that I cannot envision that somebody contemplating murder sits at the kitchen table and says 'I'm not going to commit a murder because I could face the death penalty, but I will if I only face life imprisonment without parole'."
• John Van de Kamp, the former attorney general of California and former Los Angeles County District Attorney, said, “SAFE California will provide public protection by keeping those truly guilty of death penalty crimes locked up for life, and in the meantime saving us millions of dollars that will be invested in crime-fighting measures leading to the apprehension of serious criminals.”

• Bishop Cirilo Flores said, “We know that innocent people have been convicted of murder in California – three were released in 2011 after serving a total of 57 years – and that innocent people have been executed in other states. Nationwide, 140 inmates from death rows have been exonerated of the crimes for which they were wrongly convicted. In light of possible innocence, using the death penalty puts all Californians at risk of perpetrating the ultimate injustice of executing an innocent person[.]”

• Don Heller, author of the 1978 initiative that reinstated the death penalty, said, “Life without parole protects public safety better than a death sentence. It's a lot cheaper, it keeps dangerous men and women locked up forever, and mistakes can be fixed.”

Official arguments

The official arguments for the California Voter Guide were submitted by Gil Garcetti, District Attorney Los Angeles County (1992–2000); Jeanne Woodford, Warden California’s Death Row prison (1999–2004); and Jennifer A. Waggoner, the president of the League of Women Voters of California:

“

Evidence shows MORE THAN 100 INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH in the U.S., and some have been executed! Prop. 34 means WE’LL NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON in California. Franky Carrillo was 16 when he was arrested and wrongly convicted of murder in Los Angeles. It took 20 years to show his innocence! Cameron Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas for an arson that killed his children; impartial investigators have since concluded there was no arson. 'If someone’s executed and later found innocent, we can’t go back.'—Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara (Retired) California’s death penalty is TOO COSTLY and BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR. Only 13 people have been executed since 1967—no one since 2006. Most death row inmates die of old age. WE WASTE MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS on special housing and taxpayer-financed appeals that can last 25 years. Today, death row inmates can sit around doing nothing. 34 MAKES CONVICTED KILLERS WORK AND PAY into the victims’ compensation fund, as ordered by a judge. It keeps killers who commit heinous crimes IN PRISON UNTIL THEY DIE. It frees up millions of WASTED TAX DOLLARS—to help our kids’ schools and catch more murderers and rapists—without raising taxes. 34 SAVES MONEY. California is broke. Many think the death penalty is cheaper than life without parole—that’s just NOT true. An impartial study found California will SAVE NEARLY $1 BILLION in five years if we replace the death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole. Savings come from eliminating lawyers’ fees and special death row housing. http://media.lls.edu/documents/Executing_the_Will_of_the_Voters.pdf Those wasted tax dollars would be better spent on LAW ENFORCEMENT and OUR SCHOOLS. WE CANNOT LET BRUTAL KILLERS EVADE JUSTICE. Every year, almost half of all murders and over half of all rapes GO UNSOLVED. Killers walk free and often go on to rape and kill again. Thousands of victims wait for justice while we waste millions on death row. Killers who commit monstrous acts must be swiftly brought to justice, locked up forever, and severely punished. 34 SAVES TAX DOLLARS and directs $100 million in savings for more DNA testing, crime labs, and other tools that help cops solve rapes and murders. 34 makes killers who commit horrible crimes spend the rest of their lives in prison with NO HOPE OF EVER GETTING OUT. It makes them WORK so they can PAY restitution to their victims. That’s JUSTICE THAT WORKS. Every person justly sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole since 1977 is still locked up or has died in prison. Life without possibility of parole works and ensures we will NEVER EXECUTE AN INNOCENT PERSON in California. 'The death penalty doesn’t make us safer—better crime-solving does.'—Former Attorney General John Van de Kamp 'I am troubled by cases like Willingham’s—of innocent people who may have been executed. I support 34 because it guarantees we will never execute an innocent person in California.'—Bishop Flores, San Diego Diocese Vote YES on 34.

”

Opposition

Website logo of the "No on Proposition 34" campaign

Opponents

• McGregor Scott, a former U.S. Attorney.
• Californians for Justice and Public Safety
• Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
• Michael Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney
• California Republican Party
• Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully

Arguments

• Michael Ramos, the San Bernardino County District Attorney, said, "As we know, the citizens of California have voted for and approved the death penalty. I think the SAFE California Act is a slap in the face to the victims and their family members. Not only is the title of this initiative misleading but its proponents are simply using California’s tough economic times to further their cause. ... You want to save money, let’s start carrying out the will of the voters and putting the prisoners on death row to death."

Official arguments

The arguments against Proposition 34 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Pete Wilson, a former Governor of California; Marc Klaas, the father of Polly Klaas, who was murdered when she was 12; and Keith Royal, the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association:

“

California is broke. Abolishing the death penalty costs taxpayers $100 MILLION OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS AND MANY MILLIONS MORE IN THE FUTURE. Instead of justice, killers get lifetime housing/healthcare benefits. PROP. 34 ISN’T ABOUT SAVING MONEY. It’s about the ACLU’s agenda to weaken public safety laws. They’re desperate to convince you that saving murderers from justice is justified. Or, if you don’t believe that, they claim it saves money! THE ACLU’S EFFORTS ARE INDEFENSIBLE, CRUEL TO LOVED ONES OF VICTIMS, MISLEADING AND INSULTING TO VOTERS AND DANGEROUS FOR CALIFORNIA. Prop. 34 lets serial killers, cop killers, child killers, and those who kill the elderly, escape justice. Proponents don’t acknowledge that when California’s death penalty was eliminated before, condemned criminals were released only to rape and kill again! Voters had to restore capital punishment to restore justice. HERE ARE THE FACTS. The death penalty is given to less than 2% of murderers whose crimes are so shocking that juries of law-abiding citizens unanimously delivered the sentence. Richard Allen Davis: kidnapped, raped and murdered 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez: kidnapped, raped, tortured and mutilated 14 people and terrorized 11 more including children and senior citizens. Gang Member Ramon Sandoval: ambushed and shot Police Officers Daryle Black (a former U.S. Marine) and Rick Delfin with an AK-47, killing Black, shooting Delfin in the head and wounding a pregnant woman. Serial killer Robert Rhoades, a child rapist, kidnapped 8-year old Michael Lyons. Rhoades raped and tortured Michael for 10 hours, stabbing him 70 times before slitting his throat and dumping his body in a river. Alexander Hamilton: executed Police Officer Larry Lasater (a Marine combat veteran). Lasater’s wife was seven months pregnant at the time. Capital murder victims include: 225 CHILDREN 43 POLICE OFFICERS 235 RAPED/murdered 90 TORTURED/murdered THE ACLU IS THE PROBLEM: They claim the death penalty is broken and expensive. What hypocrisy! It’s the ACLU and supporters who have disrupted fair implementation of the law with endless delays. Other states including Ohio and Arizona give criminals full rights and fairly enforce the death penalty. California can too. PLAYING POLITICS: Marketing Prop. 34, supporters make cost claims based on newspaper articles and 'studies' written by the ACLU or other death penalty opponents. Department of Corrections data suggests abolishing capital punishment will result in increased long-term costs in the tens of millions, just for housing/healthcare. Taxpayers will spend at least $50,000 annually to care for each convicted killer who didn’t think twice about killing innocent children, cops, mothers and fathers. DO YOU THINK GIVING VICIOUS KILLERS LIFETIME HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE BENEFITS SAVES MONEY? OF COURSE NOT! THAT’S THE SECRET PROP. 34 PROPONENTS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW. It’s not about money . . . it’s about their political agenda. Prosecutors, cops, crime victims and community leaders across California are urging you to vote NO on 34. Stop the ACLU. Preserve the death penalty. Protect California. Visit waitingforjustice.net. Please join us. Vote NO on 34.

”

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

• The Bay Area Reporter: "It costs state and county governments collectively between $100 million to $130 million annually to pay for the costs of death penalty trials, appeals, and corrections, savings that would be allocated to pay for increased investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases."

• The Contra Costa Times: "California's death penalty is archaic, unfairly applied and fiscally insane."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "Initially we were opposed to this measure, but the more we read about the barbarity of the death penalty, and the number of nations worldwide which have banned it, the more we were in favor."

• The Lompoc Record: "The deliberate taking of another human’s life is the worst of transgressions, and if one adheres to the eye-for-an-eye belief, the death penalty seems appropriate. On the other hand, death-penalty opponents will point out that the same religious teachings promote the concept that thou shalt not kill, as in execute."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Supporting Proposition 34 doesn't mean being sympathetic to the state's most heinous murderers. These are bad people who have done unspeakable things. But the reality is that sentencing them to die doesn't result in death, just a private cell and a personal legal team dedicated to sparing their life."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "Ending this farce of a punishment would save California about $130 million a year."

• The Los Angeles Times: "...eliminating the death penalty would end the risk that the hands of all Californians will be stained with the blood of an innocent."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "California's death penalty has become more of a deterrent for executions than for murderers. Meanwhile, California taxpayers foot billions in legal costs for numerous trials and appeals."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "California voters should support Proposition 34 and end the charade of the death penalty as a method of ultimate punishment in our state. This position should not be construed as any form of sympathy for these criminals nor mercy towards them. Peterson, Stayner and their counterparts on death row have been convicted of brutal, unspeakable crimes and deserve the harshest possible punishment. The reality of the situation, however, is that none will likely face their death at the hands of the state anytime soon."

• The Modesto Bee:

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "Many Californians, for moral or ethical reasons, oppose the death penalty. We do not. The 727 inmates on California's Death Row have committed appalling crimes — murders sinister, vicious and cold-blooded. They have no business in human society. And a sentence of death is entirely just. Unfortunately, California does not have the death penalty. Not in reality. It has a sham of a system that sentences the worst murderers to die, but first runs through a circle of legal appeals so costly and slow that the condemned are more likely to die of old age or at their own hand than in the execution chamber at San Quentin."

• The Sacramento Bee: "In November, California voters will have a chance, through Proposition 34, to end the death penalty and replace it with a system of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. We urge you to vote for it. While capital punishment remains popular in California, polls suggest that a majority of those surveyed would accept ending the death penalty if it were replaced with a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Numerous longtime supporters of capital punishment have concluded our system can't be fixed and are supporting Proposition 34 because of it. Like The Bee, they want California's justice system to be honest with its citizens and with the victims of crime. The current system is anything but."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "California's death penalty, for all practical purposes, is not a death penalty. It is a costly sentence that sucks up millions of dollars in public funds to support a special class of inmates who are more likely to die of old age than from lethal injection. It does not provide justice in any form."

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "The cost of implementing the death penalty since it was restored in California in 1978 exceeds $4 billion — about $308 million for each of the 13 people the state has killed. So: California could hire 5,000 more teachers for every inmate strapped into a gurney and pumped full of lethal drugs."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "California's death penalty has not satisfied anyone since it was reinstated 35 years ago. Those who are morally opposed to capital punishment decry the 13 lives taken by the state. Those who believe the death penalty brings justice and closure are frustrated that the average time between sentence and execution is 25 years."

• The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "It is a system broken beyond repair and should be ended, once and for all, and replaced with an efficient and harsh punishment: life in prison without the possibility of parole."

• The San Jose Mercury News: "Prop. 34 would end the racial and class imbalances that make capital punishment in California and other states unfair and inequitable. And most importantly it would end once and for all the possibility of an innocent person being executed."

• The Vallejo Times-Herald: "Never mind moral arguments; The death penalty simply doesn't work. Since it was reinstated in 1978, California has spent $4 billion on just 13 executions. We are no safer."

• The Ventura County Star: "But this way, at least there would be the certainty that heinous killers will die in prison, instead of making victims' families suffer for decades in California's grotesque charade about executions that probably won't occur at all."

Opposition

• The Fresno Bee: "Supporters of Proposition 34, which would abolish the death penalty in California, maintain that the state's system of capital punishment is too flawed and expensive to continue. We agree that the death penalty is flawed and the almost unlimited appeals make it very expensive. But instead of throwing out the death penalty, let's fix the problems in how it is administered. We oppose Prop. 34 on the Nov. 6 ballot, and believe that the appeals process doesn't have to be long and burdensome to ensure that an innocent person isn't executed."

• The Orange County Register: "If prison without possibility of parole becomes the toughest penalty, then a slippery slope could develop in which lesser penalties could be imposed for heinous crimes. Eventually, we could end up like Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik murdered 69 people last year and was given that country's harshest penalty, 21 years in prison."

• The Press-Enterprise: "Californians should not throw away a useful tool simply because it is temporarily broken. The state should fix and improve the death penalty, not jettison it."

• The Victorville Daily Press: "Voting yes for Prop. 34 would be one more step toward the Europeanization of California, which is probably the state closest to becoming a clone of most European countries. The only real bar to our joining the European Union is geography; on most other societal issues — unions, environmentalism, a socialistic form of government, taxation — we seem to be a member of the United States in name only."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from September 17-23, 2012.

A Los Angeles Times poll conducted from October 15 - October 21 found that 45% of voters were in favor of the proposition and 42% were opposed when voters heard about "the financial ramifications and details of [Prop. 34's] effect on prisoners."

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 17-23, 2012	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	38%	51%	11%	1,504
October 7-9, 2012	SurveyUSA	32%	48%	20%	700
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	42.9%	48.1%	9.0%	830
October 15-21	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	42%	45%	13%	1,504
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	41.3%	47.9%	10.8%	2,115
October 17-30, 2012	Field Poll	45%	38%	17%	1,912

Background

The death penalty in California

At the time of the election, California had 725 people on death row. If Proposition 34 had been approved, their sentences would have been replaced with life in prison without the possibility of parole. These prisoners would also have been required to seek jobs within the prison system, and their earnings would have gone to crime victims. Seven of the 725 people on death row at the time of the vote had exhausted all appeals and were eligible for execution. At the time of the election, the last time a prisoner was put to death in California was in 2006. At that time, a federal judge halted executions in the state until various changes were made in how the state administers the death penalty.

As of 2012, California was one of 33 states that authorized the death penalty.

The death penalty in California was judicially invalidated in the 1970s and was then reinstated via Proposition 7 in 1978. Thirteen inmates had been executed between 1978 and 2012.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Jeanne Woodford submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on August 29, 2011.
• The ballot title and ballot summary was issued by California's attorney general's office on October 20, 2011.
• To qualify for the ballot, 504,760 valid signatures were required.
• The 150-day circulation deadline was March 19, 2012.
• Supporters of the initiative submitted approximately 800,000 signatures to county election officials on March 1, 2012.
• On April 23, 2012, the California Secretary of State announced that Proposition 34 had qualified for the November 6, 2012, ballot.

Cost of signature collection:

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 34 for the ballot came to $1,418,122.

The signature vendor was Kimball Petition Management.

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Superior Court Case

Supporters of Proposition 34 filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of Sacramento County seeking to change Proposition 34's official ballot title. Their lawsuit was rejected by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley.

Opponents of Proposition 34 filed a lawsuit asking that part of the ballot argument in favor of Proposition 34 that was submitted by its supporters be changed in the official voter guide. This lawsuit was successful. Proposition 34 supporters wanted to say in their argument that Proposition 34 would "redirect" $100 million in general fund money to law enforcement from the savings that would be generated by the elimination of capital punishment. Superior Court Judge Frawley, however, agreed with Proposition 34 opponents that if $100 million were to be allocated out of the state's general fund money, this would be "unrelated to ... any savings achieved by Proposition 34." With that in mind, Frawley ordered the California Secretary of State to change the wording in that part of the argument from "redirect" to "direct."

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a report or analysis to be considered for inclusion in this section, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

A 2011 study by former prosecutor and federal judge Arthur Alarcón indicated that California spent approximately $4 billion to execute 13 people since the death penalty was reinstated. The Alarcón report also indicated that implementing the death penalty in California costs $184 million dollars per year more than implementing sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Death penalty on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 34
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 11-0035

Supporters:

• Safe California campaign website
• "Yes on 34" on Facebook
• "Yes on 34" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports for the "Yes on Prop 34" committee (1341187)
• Campaign finance reports for the "Committee in Support of the Safe California Act/ACLU of Northern California" committee (1344843)

Opponents:

• The "No on 34" website
• "No on 34" on Facebook
• "No on 34" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports for "Californians for Justice and Public Safety, No on Proposition 34" (1346266)
• Campaign finance reports for "Public Safety First - Keep the Death Penalty, Sponsored by the California Public Safety Institute" (1345802)
• Campaign finance reports for "Justice California/No on Proposition 34" (1345752)