- Slug: California Proposition 36. 1,300 words.
By Brandelyn Clark
Cronkite News
LOS ANGELES – As California grapples with a surge in crime, the debate over how to address the issue has divided the state. Proposition 36, also known as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, would toughen penalties for nonviolent drug and theft offenses and add new sentencing enhancements.
Supporters argue it’s a necessary step to rebuild communities’ safety and health while critics warn the proposition will refill prisons and disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
If passed, Prop. 36 would reverse Proposition 47, an extensive prison and sentencing reform measure. Since its adoption nearly a decade ago, it has reduced the prison population, reduced recidivism and saved the state more than $800 million.
John Malpede, artistic director of the Los Angeles Poverty Department, founded the organization in response to an increasing displacement crisis in the city’s Skid Row neighborhood in downtown LA. Malpede’s organization has done performances highlighting the overcrowding in prisons.
Malpede positions himself as a firm “no” on this ballot measure. He advocates for community-based rehabilitation over incarceration.
“Safety is created by making community. By taking people out of their community and putting them in jail, isn’t the way to make it safer,” Malpede said. “The way to make safer communities is to engage with everyone … and find solutions.”
Supporters of Prop. 36 argue that harsher penalties are necessary to deter crime.
“This truly is targeted toward the people that have been doing the smash and grabs and individuals that are repeat offenders, that have used the provision of 47 as a loophole and understand how to manipulate the system,” said Kathryn Barger, LA County supervisor for the Fifth District.
According to Yes on 36 – Californians for Safer Communities, a coalition of businesses, advocacy groups and others, California small businesses and stores lost nearly $9 billion in 2022 from theft and the high cost of increased security and lost sales due to the need to lock up items.
Prop. 36 supporters say the measure aims to improve public safety by introducing more rigid penalties for certain criminal offenses. The proposition would make three changes to primary drug and theft laws and sentence enhancements: turning theft misdemeanors into felonies for repeat offenders; lengthening sentences for major drug sales and crimes committed by groups; and requiring prison time for some drug-related felonies instead of county jail sentencing.
Additionally, the proposition would establish s a new court process for individuals repeatedly convicted of drug possession. This process will allow them to receive treatment instead of harsher penalties, with charges dismissed upon successful completion. If treatment is not completed, individuals will serve up to three years in prison.
Finally, courts would have to warn those convicted of selling drugs that they could face murder charges if the drugs they distribute lead to an individual’s death.
However, critics argue that instead of addressing the root causes of crime, such as health-care access, multiple housing crises and poverty, Prop. 36 will put marginalized populations behind bars.
California voters will decide on Nov. 5 whether to pass the controversial ballot measure. Supporters of the petition-driven measure have raised more than $10 million, including funding from Walmart, Target and Home Depot.
According to a poll by Public Policy Institute of California, 71% of likely voters would vote yes.
An analysis by Vera Institute of Justice, an advocacy group fighting to end mass incarceration, found that proposed increases in penalties for retail theft associated with the proposition could disproportionately harm Latino and Black communities. The organization asserts that if the proposition passes, there will be drastic growth in the prison population alongside increases in racial disparities within the legal system, affecting vulnerable populations like children and young adults the most.
“The war on drugs and mass incarceration went on for decades and decades and I think it’s only fair … working with people to improve their lives and keep them out of prison should be given a longer period of time, and not reactively jump on the old solutions that created human rights abuses in prisons and required … the Supreme Court to remedy the overcrowding. It’s a no-brainer in that regard,” Malpede said.
Before Prop. 47, California prisons were holding nearly twice their intended capacity. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 the overcrowded conditions violated the inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Prop. 47 has forced the state to reallocate its funds to drug and mental health treatment and homelessness prevention. This funding has provided services to nearly 22,000 people, shifting them away from jail and into community-building programs, according to a state evaluation of the program.
But opponents say loopholes in Prop. 47 let people off the hook.
“(When Prop.) 47 went into play, my concern centered around the drug court, and the fact that we were taking away a very valuable tool that’s been very successful in addressing drug addiction, especially on the streets, and 47 wiped that away,” Barger, the county supervisor, said, asserting that reclassifying drug crimes caused an uptick in fentanyl and other drugs. “All roads lead back to providing better services for those ending up in our justice system – and doing it early. I believe Prop. 36 is … going to better serve the community as it relates to the issues surrounding drug addiction and getting people into treatment.”
Barger highlighted LA County’s annual investment through Measure J for prevention services and youth development, saying if Prop. 36 passes, this money will provide the community with “proper support.”
Measure J passed in 2020, marking another decisive step in LA County’s social justice reform efforts. According to the county, the measure mandates that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted LA County funds be allocated to social services, such as housing, mental health care and jail diversion programs. The measure prohibits the county from using these funds for prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
“We’re not going to criminalize those that are unhoused. Our goal is to get teams out there to offer resources and work to get people into housing … especially those suffering from addiction and mental health. I don’t believe that this is going to have an impact on those individuals,” Barger said.
Although Barger supports Prop. 36, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors took an official position to oppose it on Tuesday. The motion stated: “The Board of Supervisors has a duty to advocate for policies that promote equity, public safety, and economic stability. Prop. 36 poses a risk to these core values. This measure … disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and threatens to reverse important gains in justice reform.”
Chelsea Byers, vice mayor of West Hollywood, personally opposes the proposition, highlighting the importance of investing in supportive services rather than criminalization. The city hasn’t taken an official position.
“What’s happening is people who have unmet needs, experiencing issues in our community, people with mental illness or drug addiction … need services and life-affirming interventions in the form of treatment, this would look at that issue in a criminalized way thinking that anybody experiencing these issues is worthy of being sent to prison,” Byers said.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 36 would strip tens of millions of dollars annually in funding for housing, mental health and drug treatment, school programs and victim services. The ACLU of Southern California says more people incarcerated for low-level offenses would cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion annually, on top of the $27 billion already allocated to jails, courts and prisons across California.
“As a city, (we) embrace inclusion, we embrace diversity, and we really recognize as a city, our public dollars should be invested back into the best services that help everyone, and that’s why, personally, I see Prop. 36 as such an affront to progress because it’s not looking at the best way to invest in everyone,” Byers said.
For more stories from Cronkite News, visit cronkitenews.azpbs.org.