In a 12-page campaign mailer, Schwarzenegger urges voters to approve Proposition 69. The Governor characterizes Proposition 69 as a “DNA database for convicted felons,” stating that it will “take convicted criminals off the street” (emphasis added).

In fact, Proposition 69 clearly states that California’s convicted felon DNA database will be expanded to “any adult person arrested or charged with any felony offense.” Proposition 69 gives the government the power to seize DNA samples from people arrested for any felony offense – even if they are never charged with a crime or convicted – and store this sensitive information in the state’s convicted violent felon database for matching with crime scenes across the state. Every year in California, more than 50,000 felony arrests do not result in criminal charges.

Expansion of the state’s violent criminal database to include genetic profiles of innocent people is among the most troubling provisions in Proposition 69 and has resulted in thirty California newspapers urging “No on 69”, from the San Diego Union-Tribune to the San Francisco Chronicle. Even Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a proponent of the measure, pointed out this serious flaw in the initiative on KQED’s Forum talk show on October 8, 2004: "I didn’t write this,” Lockyer said. “I personally wouldn't have put arrests in the measure.”

The wide net cast by Proposition 69 has galvanized growing opposition across the political spectrum. Those opposing Proposition 69 include the California Democratic Party, Green Party of California and Libertarian Party of California, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Labor Federation, and the conservative Committee for Responsible Citizens. Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, now Chair of the Privacy & Freedom Center of the American Conservative Union, has said that he “strongly opposes Proposition 69 as a far-reaching and frightening proposal [that] would empower the state of California to demand DNA materials from any person simply arrested for any felony, even though that person might be later found innocent of all charges.”

Opponents call on the Governor to publicly correct his erroneous characterization of the impact of Proposition 69, including a notice to voters and correction of the Voter Guide on his website and in the automated phone calls being made to millions of California households. “The governor’s misrepresentation of this dangerous initiative—only two weeks before the election—is a disservice to California voters,” said Maya Harris, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.