Among the 10 initiatives on California’s ballot, Proposition 36 was at the forefront of a state-wide debate addressing retail theft and drug-related crimes.
On Tuesday, 70% of voters approved Prop. 36, titled “Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes,” with a 40 percentage point margin. Prosecutors can now press felony charges for drug possession and theft under $950 on individuals with two prior convictions of the same nature upon their third offense.
Governor Gavin Newsom was amongst the California officials in opposition to the bill, and others, such as San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, outwardly supported its passing.
Social and criminal justice groups across the state disagree on Prop. 36′s approval, with reactions varying from celebration to fear.
During a “Free Our Youth” rally and teach-in on Wednesday morning, various social and youth rights group representatives expressed their concerns about the outcome of this ballot measure. The event was held in front of the building housing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
De Anna Pittman, Young Women’s Freedom Center youth leadership and policy program manager, attended the teach-in.
“We’re sad, we’re upset, we’re mad that we’re going back to an era of mass incarceration,” said Pittman. She spoke at the event, reading off the demands of the organizing groups. Among the demands was to hold the Board of Supervisors accountable for the treatment of incarcerated youth.
Emilio Zapien, Youth Justice Coalition communications director, attended the event co-organized by the coalition. He said that the organization is also concerned about the legislation’s passage.
“I see Prop. 36 as a scam, essentially, between large corporations and law enforcement to derail the progress that was made when we passed Prop. 47,” Zapien said.
Both offenses were reclassified as misdemeanors when Prop. 47 passed in 2014 with almost 60% approval. The legislation allowed those with no prior convictions of murder, sex offenses or rape to have lower sentences for drug-related crimes and theft under $950. Prop. 47 also allowed sentence reductions of already-convicted individuals to reflect the reclassification of these crimes. Not all organizations in the state support Prop. 47, despite it having passed with a wide margin.
Harriet Salarno, chair of Crime Victims United, said in an email to Annenberg Media that the passing of Prop. 36 will fix “the public safety disaster” that Prop. 47 created.
“We look forward to Prop. 36 closing the legal loopholes that criminals have been exploiting to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafficking and repeat retail theft. This is a win for crime victims and public safety,” she said.
Whether the passing of Prop. 36 and the rollback of Prop. 47 is considered progress is a point of disagreement for these organizations.
“Now, four years after 2020 and the uprisings for Black Lives, we’re seeing a rollback of all the progress that has been made,” Zapien said. “I’m worried it’s going to impact our young people in the courts.”
“They have a lot of folks in our community thinking that this was the right move, that folks are going to be safer, folks are going to be protected, that people are going to think twice,” Pittman said. “But that’s not going to happen when folks are literally struggling to survive and they make decisions in the moment.”
While some teach-in attendees saw the passage of Prop. 36 as a setback, other California community members and organizations saw it as a triumph.
Robert Rivinius, political director of the Family Business Association of California, said he was pleased with the individuals who voted in favor of Prop. 36.
“If you [commit] a crime, you get arrested. You [committed] a crime, you got arrested,” he said.
The California Voters’ Guide website also lists Crime Victims United of California and the California District Attorneys Association as supporters of the measure.
Jonathan Raven, assistant CEO of the California District Attorneys Association, said that the support from California voters in addressing issues of retail theft, addiction, the fentanyl epidemic and homelessness was gratifying for the organization.
Prop. 36 created a “treatment-mandated felony” charge for those in possession of illegal drugs instead of a misdemeanor for some cases. This charge can be brought against those who possess fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine and have two prior drug-related convictions. Upon completion of treatment, the charges could be dismissed.
The measure also undoes some punishment reductions that Prop. 47 implemented, as well as requiring courts to warn individuals of potential murder charges if they distribute or provide illegal drugs that kill someone.
“The voters made a resounding statement yesterday that they want real change and expect policymakers and state and local officials to fix these problems,” Raven said. “However, yesterday’s vote was just the beginning. We now must work together in earnest to fully implement this promising voter mandate.”
Voters became a topic of conversation at the teach-in, calling for mobilization.
Melina Abdullah, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles chapter and Black Lives Matter Grassroots, spoke at the teach-in and called for mobilization of California’s youth.
“To be here together, especially with our young people leading, is hugely important and reminds us of the truism that we have to vote, but we also have to organize,” she said. “No oppressed people have ever simply voted themselves into freedom. We have to organize ourselves into freedom.”