Normally, judges take no positions on propositions. However, when ballot measures directly affect the administration of justice, judges can and do voice their opinions. That is the case with Proposition 5.

Proposition 5, which is on the November ballot, calls itself the "Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act." It purports to support drug courts and rehabilitation, but it doesn't accomplish the mission.

We are concerned judges of the Yolo Superior Court who are or have been actively involved in running drug courts. In our opinion, this proposition will have a serious and negative impact on the administration of justice in California. There are literally dozens of defects in this complex proposal - too numerous to detail in this brief article. Here are some of the more significant defects we see in this proposition:

• This is an initiative written by an advocacy group. It is very long, encompassing 36 single-spaced pages in a relatively small font. It makes intricate and detailed amendments to a significant number of existing statutes and executive policies. We doubt that 5 percent of the voters of California will have read the entire text of this new law before they vote on it. Is this a good way to make state law?

• Proposition 5 imposes dramatically increased workloads on courts and judges without providing any increase in the number of judges or needed funding. The increased cost to the Los Angeles Superior Court alone has been calculated at $63 million per year with an additional 183,000 hearings required. Orange County estimates that its caseload will increase some 300 percent.

• The estimated cost of Proposition 5 is $1 billion annually, and none of this funding may be used for drug testing. Anyone who runs drug courts knows that drug testing is a critical component to supervised treatment and accountability of substance abusers.

• Drug courts as we know them - which tend to focus on first-time offenders - would be virtually destroyed. Proposition 5 would require courts to take into their drug court system offenders who have suffered up to five convictions of any offense within a 30-month period. Effectively, the target population of drug courts will become the most incorrigible and difficult-to-treat offenders at the expense of new or first-time offenders.

• Addicted defendants will be permitted five violations of probation or treatment failures based on drug use, and judges will be unable to meaningfully intervene until the sixth violation.

• The proposition dramatically restricts a judge's ability to impose some jail time as a sanction in drug court. Judges who operate drug courts have found that the ability to impose a brief stint in jail - even the possibility of that imposition - can have dramatically positive effects in convincing drug-addicted defendants that it is better to stay in the treatment program and stay clean rather than risk the wrath of the judge. This proposition removes that tool from judges.

• The most serious sanction for the most serious felony offenders in this system is one year in the county jail for termination from the program. No prison can be imposed even for non-drug-related felonies. In our experience, this provides no incentive to seriously addicted offenders.

We believe in drug courts and the real possibility that drug courts can help people escape addictions and turn their lives around. Proposition 5, while well-intentioned, does far more harm than it provides benefits. We have serious concerns that drug addicts who run afoul of the criminal justice system will not be well-served by this proposition. If this proposition passes, we predict that more addicts will not succeed in drug courts and in treatment. That hurts the folks who are addicted to drugs, and it harms society as a whole.