Students and community members gathered in Tresidder Oak last night to watch debates about three contentious Calif. propositions that will be on the state ballot for the Nov. 2 election. The speakers argued the merits of Prop. 66, which revises California’s three-strikes law; Prop. 71, which sets aside $3 billion of state funds for stem-cell research; and Prop. 72, which increases health-insurance requirements for businesses.

Although the crowd was generally small — the size peaked at 50 during the debate on Prop. 71 — attendees were often vocal and even willing to chastise the speakers by demanding, “Will you please answer the question?”

The debates were co-sponsored by Stanford in Government and the Peninsula Community Foundation. Each debate was moderated by a different member of Stanford in Government.

Proposition 66: common sense or a boon to criminals?

First on the agenda was Prop. 66, which will restrict the application of the three-strikes law to violent or serious felonies. Bob Kearny of the American Civil Liberties Union said this proposition is a “common sense” revision of the law.

“The effort is to restore voters’ intent when they voted for three strikes 10 years ago,” he said. “What voters wanted was sentencing for serious offenders. Right now we have people serving life sentences for stealing a spare tire and shoplifting.”

To support his claim that the three-strikes law, as written, penalizes small-time offenders more than dangerous criminals, Kearny said that 58 percent of people serving 25 years to life for their third strike were in jail for a nonviolent crime.

San Mateo District Attorney Jim Fox countered that the proposition would have disastrous consequences, particularly since it would allow criminals sentenced under the current three-strikes law to be re-sentenced and to presumably receive lighter penalties.

“I find myself in a somewhat unusual position, because in 1994 I was the only district attorney in state to take a position in opposition to the three-strikes law,” Fox said. “It doesn’t fix the three strikes law, it dramatically alters it. Frankly if [fixing it] was all it did, I probably wouldn’t be here tonight.”

According to Fox, he originally objected to the law because it gave too much power to district attorneys and not enough power to judges, a problem that was remedied in the 2003 People v. Romero case, which gave judges the authority to reject sentences set by district attorneys.

Fox also cited several hypothetical cases contrasting the sentences under the current law and those under the proposed law. One example he gave was a two-time convicted rapist who was caught trying to break into someone’s house.

“Under Prop. 66, this is not a serious crime, because it was only attempted robbery,” he said. “The proposition is so poorly worded that we will end up victims of unintended consequences.”

Kearny, on the other hand, emphasized that criminals can still be harshly sentenced — and can still see their sentences increased due to repeat offenses — under other laws.

“California has four times as many people serving under three strikes as every other state with three strikes combined,” he said. “There’s this idea going around that only three strikes is keeping us safe, only three strikes exactly as it is written now, and that’s just not true.”

Proposition 71: Exciting

opportunity or a giveaway?

Prop. 71 would raise $3 billion for embryonic stem-cell research over the next 10 years through the sale of bonds, and would cost the state and estimated $6 billion. Kirk Kleinschmidt of the Yes on 71 campaign told the audience that he was personally excited by the possibilities offered by stem-cell research.

“Regenerative medicine is a new concept,” he said. “Traditionally, what we do is ultimately a maintenance strategy for chronic disease. With our proposal, what we are hoping to do is fund the research that will look at chronic diseases and do the basic biomedical research that hasn’t been done yet and get the critical mass to find a cure.”

He added, “There are no promises or guarantees, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.”

Dr. Rex Greene, a consultant on bioethics, agreed that stem-cell research needs to be conducted, but objected to the high cost of the proposition, calling it a “giveaway.”

“Our health care system is losing emergency rooms, is losing trauma centers,” he said. “This is an unaffordable expense based on the science that backs it up, a science that is in its infancy.”

The two speakers also sparred over how transparent the 29-member committee created by Prop. 71 would be.

“It’s in our interest to regularly communicate with the public, because it is their money and we want them to know what’s going on,” Kleinschmidt said.

In Greene’s view, however, the committee would be free from scrutiny, allowing “researchers and entrepreneurs to coast for the next 10 years.”

Kleinschmidt cited President George W. Bush’s antipathy to stem-cell research as one major reason for state-funded research. But when asked what would happen if Sen. John Kerry won the election — making state funding unnecessary — he said that there was a general anti-stem-cell atmosphere in Washington, D.C.

“Even if Kerry is elected I’m not sure that anything will change with federal funding,” he said. “It’s extremely unlikely that both houses of congress will change. In the past two sessions, the House of Representatives has passed laws criminalizing embryonic stem-cell research.”

The most combative moment of the debate was when an audience member asked Greene if he would be qualified to sit on the ethics committee created by the proposition. When the audience member interrupted Greene’s response, Greene asked the questioner if he had ties to the Prop. 71 campaign.

“I would not be qualified to serve as an ethicist on the board,” Greene acknowledged, but added, “I think that is a shabby attack on my credentials.”

Proposition 72: Help for workers

or a disaster for business?

Dr. Hal Holman from Stanford’s School of Medicine spoke to the audience in favor of Prop. 72, which is a referendum on state senator John Burton’s bill requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to offer individual health-care plans. The bill also requires businesses with 200 or more employees to offer family plans.

“Perhaps the best way to consider Proposition 72 is to think about a family member or a friend or a colleague who has had a serious illness,” Holman said.

“Contemplate what would have happened to that family member or colleague had they not had insurance. They would not been able to get any regular pattern of health care and would have had to depend on emergency room care.”

Holman also argued, “The fundamental opposition to this proposition is coming from big business, specifically big businesses like Wal-Mart, Macy’s and fast-food chains.”

Jeff Acton, who owns seven local Round Table Pizza restaurants, characterized himself as a small-business owner who will be harmed by the plan.

“This law says to businesses, ‘If you can’t afford this, California doesn’t want you and you can go away,” he said. “And you know what? That’s what they’re going to do.”

Acton — who said that he provides health care for only his managers and supervisors — estimated that the bill would cost his own business $250,000 annually.

Holman acknowledged that the bill would have costs, but argued, "The cost of voting no is ill health, ruined lives and bankruptcies. I say vote your heart, and allow the economics to be worked out."