Schwarzenegger vetoes prison access bill (with a twist)

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has once again vetoed an SPJ-sponsored bill, SB 1521, to overturn restrictions on media access to prisoners, despite the overwhelming numbers by which the bill was approved in the Legislature (in one house there was only a single vote in opposition) -- but this time the governor's veto message provided a twist.

The veto message read:     

   I am returning Senate Bill 1521 without my signature.
   Last year I vetoed a similar measure because it would have allowed the media to
  glamorize murderers and thereby once again traumatize crime victims and their families. I am vetoing this bill for the same reason.  I believe California must provide greater access to our prisons through the media, especially now as we address problems with overcrowding, medical care and high recidivism rates.
    There are portions of this bill that would facilitate greater media access and let the sun shine in; however I do not believe violent criminals should be able to traumatize their victims a second time by having unfettered access to the media.
    Therefore, I have directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to immediately  issue new regulations to implement the provisions of this bill to allow media access, but limit media access to specific violent criminals in order to protect crime victims and their  families.

Peter Sussman, who's been the point person for SPJ in sponsoring versions of this bill in Sacramento since the prison interview restrictions were put in place more than 10 years ago, does not believe the governor's suggested new regulations would easily pass constitutional muster. Acknowledging that he's a layman, not a lawyer, Sussman says:

"If the reason for the restrictions on interviews is to control what the press writes about certain kinds of convicts -- or the way the public responds to reports in the news media -- then I think the regulations will be much more vulnerable to legal challenge than the same restrictions on ALL inmates, based on asserted security grounds, however dubious those security claims may be. The regulations we've been challenging were ultimately based (in theory) on security, the theory being that those prisoners with access to the press gained new stature and undue influence in the eyes of their fellow convicts (becoming so-called "big wheels" in the prisons) and therefore represented a security threat. That farfetched theory was endorsed by the Supreme Court when it voted to allow such restrictions during the 1970s.

"So I guess that now interviewees are not 'big wheels,' and interviews don't pose a security threat within the institution after all. Now, apparently, the reason to restrict interviews is to control what the press writes and what the public is allowed to read, hear or see. I would think it would be hard to validate that rationale on constitutional grounds, if the First Amendment has any meaning anymore.

"And what if some of those with violent crimes are actually innocent? No interviews would be allowed because the governor doesn't want to traumatize those who were hurt by crimes the wrongly accused convict didn't commit. As we're all aware, in recent years an increasing number of convicts have been shown to be wrongfully convicted, and that's certainly one of the reasons why a journalist might want to interview them -- and ought to be allowed to do so. Such interviews have played a role in exoneration when the normal court appeals have been exhausted."