This year’s Super Tuesday features only one statewide proposition, which is poised to build and develop mental health treatment facilities in California.
A “yes” vote for Proposition 1 authorizes $6.38 billion in bonds to build treatment facilities for those struggling with mental health and substance use problems. It also reallocates some county funding for statewide care that is taken from the 1% tax on income over $1 million.
A “no” vote opposes changing the Mental Health Services Act and issuing the bonds to homeless individuals and veterans.
Here is what some USC students thought about Prop. 1:
“The mental health resources we have at the state or the county level are not good,” said Sara Steinecker, a 20-year-old political science major who voted yes on Prop. 1. “We don’t have enough beds for in-patient treatment and things like that. It’s really important to build up that infrastructure.”
“Prop 1 helps fund education for care providers to have a more holistic approach to care, which I think is really important because you can’t just institutionalize people,” she continued. “So it’s very important to have compassionate care with dignity. And I think that the bond will help fund training people to do so.”
“It’s super important, especially in a city like L.A. where there’s so much mental health issues and people on the street that need help,” said Elizabeth Becker, a senior studying popular music performance.
“I felt like it’s kind of a pet project of the governor’s,” said River Muench, a junior from Pasadena who voted yes on Prop. 1. “I don’t really understand why he is so big about it specifically, but I guess it helps mental health. It’s not going to hurt, but I’m not sure if it’s really gonna do that much to help.”
Opponents of Prop 1 — including Mental Health America of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and CalVoices — believe that the program will be expensive and destructive according to the California Voter Information Guide.
According to the guide, Prop. 1 challengers believe that now is a bad time for new bonds and debt of this amount and that this isn’t a solution to homelessness. Additionally, they cite worries that the proposition will take away funding from programs that are already working.