Courts. Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
	Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 220

Proposition 220 has nothing to do with preserving the Three Strikes Law. In fact, Senator Bill Lockyer and his fellow "soft on crime" politicians have been the biggest roadblock to the enactment and implementation of Three Strikes in this State.

Proposition 220 eliminates an effective and efficient system of justice for many small, but important, civil and criminal cases. Proposition 220 is based on the false premise that municipal court judges are not busy and can assist superior court judges in clearing their caseloads. The truth is, municipal courts are just as busy as any other court.

What is needed is for our state Legislature to create new judicial districts to correspond with California's expanding population. But Bill Lockyer will not allow that to happen, fearing that a tough-on-crime Governor will appoint tough-on-crime judges to fill those new judgeships.

Furthermore, Proposition 220 will not save taxpayers money. Our own state Department of Finance has concluded that Proposition 220 will increase costs to taxpayers.

Three Strikes has contributed to historic drops in California's crime rate and has helped reduce the number of repeat criminals clogging our courts. Despite Senator Lockyer's claim, the number of trials has not gone up as a result of Three Strikes.

I don't trust a politician who uses the important law that I championed and millions of Californians supported for his own political agenda--especially when that politician was and is an enemy of Three Strikes.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 220.

MIKE REYNOLDS
Author of Three Strikes and You're Out Law