1986 California Proposition 64

The initiative

Proponents argued that the measures would merely return AIDS to the list of communicable diseases under the public health laws. The ballot argument in favor of the proposition were pathologist John Grauerholz, psychiatrist Nancy T. Mullan, and former Centers for Disease Control advisor Gus S. Sermos. Congressman William E. Dannemeyer was also a proponent.

Opponents characterized it as an effort to force HIV-positive individuals out of their jobs and into quarantine. Said Helen Miramontes, R.N., president of the California Nurses Association:

The ballot argument against the measure was signed by Gladden V. Elliott, president of the California Medical Association, Congressman Ed Zschau, and Senator Alan Cranston. The submitted supporting argument included claims that AIDS could be transmitted by insects, respiratory means and casual contact. These claims were challenged in a suit by California Secretary of State March Fong Eu, based on the argument that they had no scientific support.

The initiative was opposed by the Catholic Bishops of California.

In 1986, the text of Proposition 64 was re-introduced in California by the "Prevent AIDS Now In California" (also PANIC) committee and appeared on the November 1986 ballot as "Proposition 69." It was also defeated.

Related controversies

The gathering of signatures to qualify the initiative was handled in part by a paid contractor. The fee was paid with a contribution by the Caucus Distributors Inc, a key part of the LaRouche movement. The political consultant who was hired by the LaRouche organization to collect signatures for the PANIC initiative was convicted of fraud in October 1988. The consultant, Stanley I. Dale, used out-of-state signature-collectors and claimed they were California residents. March Fong Eu, Secretary of State of California, notified the committee that her office had received numerous complaints of harassment by signature gatherers, including "outrageous verbal abuse for mere failure to sign petitions". She warned them that further complaints would result in legal action.

LaRouche activists accused official agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control of "criminal malfeasance" for refusing to back measures such as mandatory testing.

References

References

1. "Statement of Vote 1986". California Secretary of State.
2. "The State AIDS Test Measure Near OK for Ballot", Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 23, 1986. pg. 2
3. "Probe of LaRouche Initiative On AIDS Turns to East Bay;" Edward Iwata. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Jul 25, 1986. pg. 14
4. "Backers of AIDS quarantine boost initiative drive," Bill Callahan. The Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Feb 6, 1986. pg. B.12.3.
5. "Proposition 64 Text, analysis, and arguments".
6. Hyer, Marorie. (October 31, 1986). "Bishop Urges Church Action On AIDS Care". The Washington Post.
7. "Strange Twists Mark Prop. 64 Campaign;" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 30, 1986. pg. 25
8. link. (2012-02-05 United Press International (10/31/88))
9. "AIDS-Control Backers Get Warning From Eu;" San Francisco Chronicle.San Francisco, Calif.: May 20, 1986. pg. 11
10. "LaRouche's Program for a War on AIDS".