That other source is the American Bar Association.

In the ABA's Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Guideline 5.1 discusses the qualifications of defense counsel.  Prior capital case experience is not among them.   The history note indicates that the ABA has moved away from the quantitative measures of experience in prior editions.  The commentary says,

There are also attorneys who do not possess substantial prior experience yet who will provide high quality legal representation in death penalty cases.  Such attorneys may have specialized training and experience in the field (e.g., as law professors), may previously have been prosecutors, or may have had substantial experience in civil practice.  These attorneys should receive appointments if the Responsible Agency is satisfied that the client will be provided with high quality legal representation by the defense team as a whole.

Proposition 66 is consistent with the ABA's own guideline.  The only change in qualifications it directs is one that the ABA recognizes as legitimate.  Did Ms. Klein review her organization's own guidelines before lending her name to this article?  It is hard to see how that is possible.

Winding up on the innocence point, the article says this:

In fact, ineffective counsel is one of the primary reasons innocent people wind up on death row. Of the 156 death row inmates who have been exonerated since 1989, nearly 1 in 5 were found to have had ineffective lawyers, according to the National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan and the Death Penalty Information Center.

The notorious list of "exonerated" inmates is defensible, if at all, only if one admits that "exonerated" does not mean "actually innocent" in the sense of "really didn't do it," which is what most people would think it means.  The DPIC uses the term "legally innocent," which they use to mean nothing more than not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial.  But the use of the unmodified word "innocent" in the first sentence strongly implies that the people on the list are truly innocent in the ordinary sense.  That is not only false, it is well known to be false.  The innocence list was denounced by Justice Scalia in an opinion in the United States Supreme Court.  Does Ms. Klein not know that?  Probably not, which is why she needs to check with both sides before putting her name on an article.  I would bet a large sum that the person who actually wrote the article knows very well that the "innocence list" has lots of guilty murderers on it.

Incidentally, both the California courts and the federal courts have exceptions to their limitations on timeliness and repetitiveness of review for showings of actual innocence.  How many such showings have been made since California restored capital punishment in 1977?  Zero.

Next the article goes into deadlines and discusses the effect on innocence claims.  In the innocence claim context, the article says, "Proposition 66 would cut the total time for appeals to just five years."  That is a flat-out falsehood.

The proposition does require the courts to get the direct appeal and the initial habeas corpus petition done in five years, although it specifically says that the expiration of that time will not result in the dismissal of an appeal or habeas corpus petition.  (Initiative § 3, amended  Penal Code § 190.6(d)&(e).)

However, for innocence claims, the time for these two proceedings is not the total time.  For actual innocence, the initiative waives both time limits and successive petition limits.  Indeed, the initiative lowers the standard for showing actual innocence in the inmate's favor, down to a mere preponderance of the evidence.  (Initiative § 6, new  Penal Code § 1509(d).)  That is far more favorable to the inmate than current California law.  To my knowledge, it is the most generous standard for an actual innocence claim in the nation.

The article goes on:

Third, Proposition 66 was designed to speed up the appeals process and save California money.  But supporters fail to take into account that if unqualified attorneys make mistakes or new evidence is uncovered after the shortened deadlines, state and federal judges could be forced to send cases back to lower courts for additional review or to correct constitutional errors. This could end up taking even longer and further burden California's courts.

This paragraph is based on the false premise that Proposition 66 requires unqualified attorneys, as explained earlier.  And how does Ms. Klein know what supporters considered?  Did she ask any of us?  She certainly did not ask me.

There is no basis for a federal court to send a case back to state court unless there is a claim that is "unexhausted," which means it was not made to the state court and is still available there.  By making actual innocence or ineligibility for the punishment the only bases for a successive petition, Proposition 66 would make innocence/ineligibility cases the only ones eligible to be sent back.  There are very few such cases, because nearly all death row inmates are stone cold guilty beyond any doubt, and cases with eligibility questions are a very limited subset.  If a federal court finds one with a substantial innocence claim, by all means send it back.  But such cases will be rare, and it will be rarer still for one to escape the more effective factual review that Proposition 66 provides for in the trial court. 

Overall, Proposition 66 will provide better protection for the few, if any, death row inmates who are actually innocent.  It will produce a large saving in time and money compared to the present system, which goes over and over cases based on claims that have nothing to do with the accuracy of the guilt verdict.

And yes, Ms. Klein, we did consider all the arguments your ghost writer makes.  We have heard it all before, many times.

There was a time when the American Bar Association was the respected voice of the profession as a whole.  When the ABA took a stand, it meant something.  For as long as I have been practicing criminal law, however, the ABA has been the voice of the defense side against the prosecution and against the victims of crime.  The ABA has transformed itself into a narrow, partisan, ideological organization.  As a result, ABA positions on criminal law matters should carry no more weight than the position of any other defense lawyer organization.