Hot Topic

Proposition 69: DNA Samples

Introduction
Proposition 69
Official Voter Information
The Argument for Proposition 69
The Argument Against Proposition 69
Key Web Sites
Selected Articles and Reports

Recommendations by Organizations and Newspapers

Other Nov. 2004 Ballot Propositions

December 2004
Final update of text and links.

LIBRARY
Institute of Governmental Studies
University of California
109 Moses Hall #2370
Berkeley, CA 94720-2370
510-642-1472 (voice)
510-643-0866 (fax)

Statewide Returns from the
California Secretary of State:

Prop. 69: Support 62.1%, Oppose 37.9%

Introduction

Proposition 69 would expand California law enforcement's right to collect DNA samples and store genetic information in the California DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base.

Proposition 69

Proposition 69 requires collection of DNA samples from:

adults and juveniles convicted of any felony offense
adults and juveniles convicted of any sex offense or arson offense, or an attempt to commit such an offense (not just felonies)
adults arrested for or charged with felony sex offenses, murder, or voluntary manslaughter (or the attempt to commit such offenses)

Additionally, starting in 2009:

adults arrested for or charged with any felony offense

The statute would authorize local law enforcement laboratories to perform analyses for the state database and maintain local databases. Procedures for confidentiality and removing samples from databases are specified. This program will be funded by additional monetary penalties imposed upon certain court fines and criminal forfeitures. An initial $7 million dollar loan is authorized to implement the program.

Official Voter Information

Via the California Secretary of State. The text, legislative analysis and ballot arguments are from the Official Voter Information Guide. Campaign finance data is from the Cal-Access database of campaign receipts and expenditures.

Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance:
Individual Campaign Committees
Total Contributions and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2004 election" and "Prop. 69" in dropdown boxes)

The Argument for Proposition 69

Proponents contend that too many crimes go unsolved because California does not have a comprehensive DNA database with samples from all convicted felons. They cite statistical evidence that states with stronger DNA collection laws are able to solve more crimes. They defend the confidentiality features of the proposition, asserting that the DNA fingerprint test used in the sample analysis yields no genetic trait information that could threaten the medical privacy of individuals. Furthermore, beginning in 2009, felony arrestees who are not convicted may have their DNA removed from the database.

The Argument Against Proposition 69

Opponents object to the expansion of DNA collection to individuals who have not been found guilty of any crime. They hold that the privacy safeguards are inadequate, and that the state would not be required to act upon a request for removal of information from an innocent individual. They also contend that DNA is more than a fingerprint, that human genes contain a wealth of information that could be used for many purposes. Opponents assert that the costs of Proposition 69 are likely to be much higher than the proponents have indicated, and will take money from other public safety and education programs.

Key Web Sites

Public Interest Sites

League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Impartial analysis of Proposition 69: In Depth and Pros and Cons

California Journal
Ballot propositions: Analysis of the November propositions by California Journal editors in the October issue.

Advocacy Sites

Californians for the DNA Fingerprint
Pro-Proposition 69 site.

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Anti-Proposition 69 site.

Selected Articles and Reports

The following citations include links to full-text online when available. For more info, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.

Slater, Eric.
"State Lends a Strong Hand to Crime-Fighting With DNA With Prop. 69's passage, police officials expect genetic fingerprinting to expand nationwide," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Winton, Richard and Andrew Blankstein .
"Proposition 69: Law Officials Ready to Start Expanding DNA Database," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 4, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Slater, Eric.
"4 Ballot Items All But Ignored: Measures aim to guard local funds, widen DNA net, aid ailing kids and open government more," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

[Opinion]
"Prop. 69 Goes Step Too Far on DNA: Vote No to Avoid Risk to Privacy," San Jose Mercury News, September 20, 2004.
NewsBank UCB

Donohue, Laura K.
"Proposition 69 Could Threaten Privacy of DNA," San Francisco Chronicle, August 22, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle

Egelko, Bob.
"Court OKs DNA collection from parolees: panel reverses itself on constitutionality of mandatory blood draws," San Francisco Chronicle, August 19, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle

Hart, Steve.
"Prop. 69 expands DNA database: police, prosecutors back measure, foes warn of risk to civil liberties," The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA, August 15, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Schnepf, Alan.
"Prop. 69 Expands State DNA Database" The Sun (San Bernardino, CA), August 8, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Fischer, Karl.
"Expanded DNA collection urged: law enforcement lobbies for statewide ballot measure that seeks to expand high-tech crime-fighting database" Contra Costa Times, July 23, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Prepared by the staff of the IGS Library.
Send comments to igsl@uclink.berkeley.edu.