Measures 57 and 61 are competing measures designed to reform sentencing for property crimes. The measure with the most votes will become law. If neither receives more yes votes than no votes, neither will become law. The measures both increase sentences for property crime offenders, but differ in their approaches in that Measure 57 supports increased sentencing primarily for repeat offenders and provides funding for rehabilitation programs, while Measure 61 takes a purely punitive approach.

Measure 61, the former Initiative Petition 40, is sponsored by Republican activist Kevin Mannix. It had ample signatures to qualify for the ballot, prompting the legislative referral of Measure 57 as a competing measure with a lower fiscal cost. The Legislature did negotiate with Mr. Mannix about replacing M61 with the legislative referral, but he reject the compromise. M61 provides mandatory minimum sentences of 30 to 36 months for a variety of crimes, from residential burglary to drug dealing. These sentences would apply to first offenses. Previously, most first time offenders would have received a probationary sentence for these crimes. People with a prior felony conviction or two misdemeanor convictions would receive mandatory minimum sentences of 18 months for forgery or felony motor vehicle theft or 14 months for first degree theft or a nonresidential burglary. The Measure also requires the State to reimburse counties for the costs of pre-trial confinement of these criminals. The estimated cost of Measure 61 is $1.1-$1.3 billion in additional bonds for prison construction between 2010 and 2017 (with a servicing cost of $709-$844 million), with sustained annual costs of $161 million to $274 million per year over the long run.

Measure 57, the legislative referral, takes a more nuanced approach, providing funding for drug rehab and primarily punishing recidivists. It eliminates probation and mandates prison for first time offenders for dealers of large amounts of drugs and thieves of more than $10,000 from the elderly. For repeat property offenders, it bumps sentences up from the 13 to 19 month range to the 18 to 24 month range and makes some technical corrections to the definition of a repeat property offender. It also provides funding for rehabilitation of drug addicted offenders, including grants to county drug rehab programs, and mandates punishment for offenders that fail to complete rehab. The State would have to borrow $314 million from 2010 to 2017 to build new prisons with a debt servicing cost of $203 million. Continuous increased annual expenses would run at about $143 million per year.

At first blush, what you think about these probably depends on your attitude towards property crime. Do you think that it is primarily committed by drug addicts who deserve a shot at rehab, or do you think that these crimes are so serious that they should require a prison term for a first offense? Holders of either point of view should not be happy with the current system, which generally probates first time property offenders without requiring (or funding) treatment. Repeat property offenders generally do serve prison time eventually under the current system, but they tend to serve short sentences that do not allow for rehab in prison. Lane County voters may be happy with Measure 61’s reimbursement for pretrial confinement provisions, since they’ve recently seen substantial cuts in the number of jail beds available for even repeat property criminals.

Looking a little deeper, the debate becomes more about education than criminal justice. Neither Measure provides a funding source, meaning that the funding will come from the general fund. The funding requirements will thus compete with educational funding in the State budget, unless additional sources of revenue are separately implemented.

As always, the views expressed here are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.