| |||||||||||||||||||
Allow Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Theft and Drug Crimes. People convicted of certain drug or theft crimes could receive increased punishment, such as longer prison sentences. In certain cases, people who possess illegal drugs would be required to complete treatment or serve up to three years in prison. | |||||||||||||||||||
Results | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
Yes 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% | |||||||||||||||||||
Source:California Secretary of State [1] |
Elections in California |
---|
Proposition 36, titled Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes, was an initiated California ballot proposition and legislative statute that was passed by a landslide in the 2024 general election. [2] [3] The proposition repealed parts of Proposition 47, passed during the 2014 general election, and amends the state constitution to increase penalties and allow felony charges for certain crimes. [4]
The proposition will allow for the authorization of the following: [4]
In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified several felonies as misdemeanors. Proposition 47 passed with nearly 60% [5] of votes across California, and was supported by the editorial board of the New York Times, [6] the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, [7] and the American Civil Liberties Union. [8] Support for Proposition 47 largely hinged on concerns about the overcrowding of California prisons, deemed an Eighth Amendment violation by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, [9] as well as arguments for the reallocation of funds to other crime prevention measures. [8]
In the first five months after Proposition 47 was instated, prison populations dropped by approximately 9,000. [5] As per the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Plata , the prison population reduction necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements could be as high as 46,000 people. [9] As a result of severe overcrowding in California prisons, the findings of the District court in that case affirmed that, “[I]t is an uncontested fact that, on average, an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days due to constitutional deficiencies in the [California prisons’] medical delivery system.” [9] [10]
In addition to making a significant reduction in prison populations, Proposition 47 reallocated savings from state incarceration costs in the following ways: [8] 65% to the Board of State and Community Corrections for drug treatment, mental health programs, and housing; 25% to the Board of Education to address truancy, and 10% to the California Victim Compensation Program to provide grants for victims of crime. The use of county-level savings were left to the discretion of county officials. [8] Since 2014, Proposition 47 has generated nearly $1 billion in savings from reductions in incarceration, with funds diverted to programming for homelessness, to reduce recidivism, and to support job seeking programs. [11]
Since then, prosecutors and police organizations have blamed the proposition for the state's increased retail theft, which in 2023 were reported to have reached the highest recorded level since 2000. [12] Statistics released in July 2024 by the California Department of Justice have stated that those earlier figures were inflated and that 2019 through 2024 figures indicate a decline in almost all major crime categories. [13] Some local officials have also blamed the state's increase in homelessness on Proposition 47, which eliminated the legal compulsion of treatment for those struggling from addiction and mental illnesses. [14] Statistics and analysis released from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) in February 2024 states that Proposition 47-funded programs reduced unemployment, homelessness and recidivism. [15]
In 2024, a campaign was started to qualify Proposition 36 for the November ballot. Despite being opposed by criminal justice reform groups and prominent Democrats such as Governor Gavin Newsom, who at first tried to negotiate competing legislation in order to keep the measure off the ballot [16] and then proposed a competing ballot measure, [17] the proposition gained strong support from Republicans and divided Democrats, with several prominent local officials such as San Francisco mayor London Breed and several members of the state legislature coming out in favor of the measure. [18]
Major financial backers of Proposition 36 include Walmart ($2.5 million), Home Depot ($1 million), Target ($1 million), In-N-Out Burger ($500,000), the California Correctional Peace Officers Association ($300,000) and Macy's ($215,000). [19]
The official opposition statement of Proposition 36 argues "Don't be fooled. Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less. It reignites the failed war on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes billions on prisons, while slashing crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. This puts prisons first and guts treatment. Vote No." [20]
Opponents stress the limited resources available for anyone charged with Prop 36's new Treatment Mandated Felony Care facilities for Californians with substance-use disorders. In addition, resources for those experiencing mental health crises are already insufficient and Prop 36 will only make matters worse. According to Sacramento County's behavioral health director, Dr. Quist, counties across the state "simply don't have enough capacity right now to take on a whole new population of folks that are getting mandated into treatment." [21]
The California Legislative Analyst's Office claims that Prop 36 would cost the state tens of millions of dollars in policing and incarceration, [22] funds that currently support mental health and drug treatment programs. [23]
Immigration advocates have expressed strong concerns about Proposition 36, arguing that it could lead to an increase in deportations of non-citizen Californians, including green card holders, DACA recipients, and refugees. The proposition reclassifies certain misdemeanor offenses, such as drug and theft, as felonies, which could have severe immigration consequences. Under U.S immigration law, a felony conviction can be considered an “aggravated felony”, which often results in mandatory deportation regardless of the length of residency. [24]
Grisel Ruiz, a supervising attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, [25] warned that Prop 36 would significantly increase the number of undocumented individuals facing deportation for minor offenses. For example, if “petty theft” misdemeanors become reclassified as felonies, then more immigrants–including green card holders–will be barred from getting legal status and may lose any legal status they previously had, including their ability to obtain a green card and their ability to access valuable waivers to fight deportation cases “which means deportation even if that would cause USC [U.S. Citizen] or LPR [Lawful Permanent Resident] dependents extraordinary hardship” [25] Advocates are concerned about the effect this could have on immigrant families in California because families are separated during deportation, leaving children without parents. This is particularly concerning in California because nearly half of all children, the majority of families have at least one immigrant parent. “one in four people in California is foreign born, and half of all children in California have at least one immigrant parent.” [24]
Critics argue that Proposition 36 reinforces rigid sentencing laws that prioritize punishment over rehabilitation. The California Budget and Policy Center warns that Proposition 36 may impose additional unfunded financial burdens on both state and local governments. [26] This could force local leaders to cut funding for essential public services to manage these unexpected expenses.
Proposition 36 would remove significant components of Proposition 47, which allocated funds to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. [27] This fund provided support for behavioral health services, K-12 education, and trauma recovery programs for crime victims. According to a report released by the office of Governor Newsom (who was actively campaigning against the measure), he latest estimate indicates that Proposition 47 has produced $95 million in savings for the 2024-25 state budget. [28] Funds that were saved by incarcerating fewer people were redirected to crime prevention and substance treatment programs. The reduced charge of a misdemeanor instead of a felony charge, has less of an impact on incarcerated people's employment opportunities and access to housing, which additionally creates cost savings. [29] The recidivism rates of Prop 47 reentry programs were 15.3%, between two and three times lower than the average recidivism rate for people who have served prison sentences. [29]
If Proposition 36 were to be enacted, the savings would diminish by tens of millions of dollars, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), [30] or potentially vanish entirely, per the Center for Social Justice (CSJ) assessment. [31] Such changes would result in a substantial decrease in funding for programs aimed at crime reduction, youth support, and victim recovery. Essentially, Proposition 36 would shift tens of millions of dollars annually away from crucial behavioral health services and other essential initiatives back into the state prison system.
The California Budget and Policy Center released a report in which they estimated that Proposition 36 would increase prison costs, with the current estimated cost at $4,553,423,985 annually, [32] cutting funding for crucial services such as behavioral health services, K-12 school programs for vulnerable youth, and trauma recovery services for crime victims, which have been supported with the savings that come from Prop 47. Another concern is that Prop 36 could push more people into homelessness since formerly incarcerated people are ten times more likely to experience homelessness. [33]
It is projected that Proposition 36 could increase the state prison population by 35% by 2029. [29]
The California Budget and Policy Center emphasizes how Proposition 36 advances an “incarceration-focused approach,” [34] rather than prioritizing smart investments in social programs that address the root causes of crime and promote community well-being. Proposition 36 ignores the success of previous sentencing reforms such as Proposition 47, which successfully reduced mass incarceration while maintaining the crime rate at levels significantly lower than historical peaks. "Incarceration-focused" approaches are not only ineffective but also costly and likely to exacerbate existing racial, economic, and health disparities, particularly for communities of color who are already disproportionately impacted by the carceral system. [34]
Proposition 36 will change the dynamics of people sentenced to county jail time and instead create prison sentences. The current estimated number of people in prison is approximately 90,000. If proposition 36 passes, it is estimated to create overcrowded prisons again, at an estimate of roughly 50,000 people incarcerated for drug possession and 33,000 more people in prison over the course of seven years. [32]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (October 2024) |
The official support statement of Proposition 36 argues that "Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and "smash-and-grabs" while holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws." [20]
Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size [a] | Margin of Error | In favor | Against | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
September 25 – October 1, 2024 | UC Berkeley IGS [73] | 3,045 (LV) | ± 2.5% | 60% | 21% | 20% |
California Proposition 21, known also as Prop 21, was a proposition proposed and passed in 2000 that increased a variety of criminal penalties for crimes committed by youth and incorporated many youth offenders into the adult criminal justice system. Major provisions of the proposition, as summarized by Attorney General of California are:
California Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, was an initiative statute that permanently changed state law to allow qualifying defendants convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses to receive a probationary sentence in lieu of incarceration. As a condition of probation defendants are required to participate in and complete a licensed and/or certified community drug treatment program. If the defendant fails to complete this program or violates any other term or condition of their probation, then probation can be revoked and the defendant may be required to serve an additional sentence which may include incarceration.
Drug policy of California refers to the policy on various classes and kinds of drugs in the U.S. state of California. Cannabis possession has been legalized with the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, passed in November 2016, with recreational sales starting January of the next year. With respect to many controlled substances, terms such as illegal and prohibited do not include their authorized possession or sale as laid out by applicable laws.
The California state prison system is a system of prisons, fire camps, contract beds, reentry programs, and other special programs administered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Institutions to incarcerate approximately 117,000 people as of April 2020. CDCR owns and operates 34 prisons throughout the state and operates 1 prison leased from a private company.
California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.
California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It was a proposed amendment to the California three-strikes law. Prop 66 would have required the third felony charge against a suspect to be especially violent and/or serious crimes to mandate a 25-years-to-life sentence. It also would have changed the definition of some felonies. It was rejected by voters, with 52.7% voting against the proposition.
Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews.
California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.
London Nicole Breed is an American politician who is the 45th and current mayor of San Francisco, serving since 2018. She was supervisor for District 5 and was president of the Board of Supervisors from 2015 to 2018.
Proposition 36, also titled A Change in the "Three Strikes Law" Initiative, was a California ballot measure that was passed in November 2012 to modify California's Three Strikes Law. The latter law punishes habitual offenders by establishing sentence escalation for crimes that were classified as "strikes", and requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 to life for a "third-strike offense."
In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.
Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.
Lenore Anderson is the president of the Alliance for Safety and Justice, an organization whose stated mission is to "win new safety priorities in states across the country [by] partner[ing] with leaders and advocates to advance state reform through networking, coalition building, research, education and advocacy."
The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.
California Proposition 20 was a proposed initiated state statute on the ballot in the 2020 California elections. This initiative would have added more crimes to the list of non-violent felonies for which early parole is restricted, and would have required DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.
Matthew William Mahan is an American politician and tech entrepreneur who has served as the mayor of San Jose since 2023. He previously served as the District 10 Councilmember representing the Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, and Vista Park neighborhoods. Mahan also served as the co-founder and CEO of Brigade Media, a tech company focused on civic engagement.
Elections in the U.S. state of California took place on November 5, 2024, with the statewide direct primary election being held on March 5, 2024.
Proposition 6, titled Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment, was a California ballot proposition and constitutional amendment that failed in the 2024 general election on November 5. The proposition, if passed, would have repealed the line "Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime" from the California Constitution, replacing it with language saying that involuntary servitude is prohibited absolutely.