YES ON PROP 36

The Context

Ready to lock in? This is probably one of the most contentious issues on the ballot this November, so plenty of context is required. Let’s start with what Prop 47 was to begin with, before diving into how Prop 36 will change it. 

Prop 47’s intent was to reallocate prison funding to social services by sending fewer people convicted of lower-level crimes to prison. When it went into effect in 2014, it redefined most merchandise or property thefts below $950 as misdemeanors instead of felonies. It also reclassified some drug possession offenses as misdemeanors instead of felonies. Additionally, it allowed people previously convicted of those particular felonies to petition courts to reduce their charges to misdemeanors, as if the law had been in place when they were charged. 

At the time, the measure was hailed as a huge milestone in criminal justice reform. And it was—but it was conceived of when heroin was the predominant street drug and prisons were overflowing. When fentanyl hit the drug markets in 2020, everything changed. Fentanyl is 50x stronger than heroin, can be produced at a fraction of the cost, and can kill in amounts as tiny as a grain of sand. The fentanyl crisis intersected with the pandemic, and suddenly most major west coast cities saw a major increase in homelessness, drug-related activity, and even overdoses in plain sight on their streets. Much of that drug activity included petty theft as members of more vulnerable populations became addicted to the potent drug, often ending up without support on city streets and needing to steal to survive and feed their addictions. 

Prop 47 has done what it set out to do: it has reduced the prison population and recidivism. But there have been side effects.

San Francisco has been hit particularly hard by the overlapping drug, mental health, and homelessness crises. San Franciscans are sick of reorganizing their lives to avoid streets littered with human excrement and broken glass, car break-ins, and stores whose entire inventories are locked behind plexiglass. Most of us just want to see the drug crisis solved in a humane way so that we can go back to feeling safe without compromising on our belief that jail isn’t the place to recover from addiction.

That’s why advocates and lawmakers have honed in on Prop 47. Under Prop 47, they argue that people committing crimes to financially support their addiction can’t be helped or deterred—because they can’t be held accountable in a meaningful way if their crime isn’t “serious” enough. Participation in state drug courts has in fact declined since Prop 47 passed. It’s controversial, but citation and diversion to drug treatment could be the first step on the road to recovery for someone suffering from substance use disorder and living on the street. 

Enter Prop 36, which amends Prop 47 to account for a 2024 world in which drug addiction and associated petty crime has exploded across California’s major cities, and increases accountability for convicted criminals. Sponsored by CA District Attorneys Association and major retailers, the measure would classify certain drug offenses as “treatment-mandated felonies,” allowing people convicted of possession to successfully complete drug treatment in exchange for a clean record. It would also allow people who commit three low-level thefts to be charged with felonies at a judge’s discretion and receive harsher sentences; allow judges to send armed drug kingpins to state prison rather than county jails; and increase consequences for drug dealers whose fentanyl sales kill or seriously injure someone. 

Opponents of Prop 36 think the measure is too tough on crime and will go too far in rolling back criminal justice reform wins. Our main concern is that Prop 36 is expected to cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in increased state criminal justice system costs annually by increasing the prison population. It could increase the local criminal justice system costs by tens of millions of dollars annually by increasing jail populations and administrative overhead.

There’s also been some drama surrounding this measure in the California State Legislature. For years, Governors Brown and Newsom have not touched the law because criminal justice reform is such a contentious issue and they worked hard to ensure Prop 47’s passage. This past spring, lawmakers tried to work out a legislative solution to appease opponents of Prop 47, but bungled it, and now Prop 36 is being placed before voters.

But the State Legislature recently passed its own package of reforms that will give them more flexibility to make tweaks legislatively down the road. If Prop 36 doesn’t pass, this package of reforms could be a solid alternative.

We’re still voting yes on Prop 36 because something needs to be done about the drug crisis as people continue to die from overdoses daily, and this measure will help them get those suffering from addiction into treatment. We also think San Franciscans have lived with a sense of unease when they deserve safe streets for long enough. Solving these overlapping issues should be top priority for every San Franciscan, and Prop 36 is a step in the right direction.

The Money

This stands to be the most expensive measure so far—major retailers have poured about $10 million into it. Walmart, the measure’s biggest supporter, has contributed $2.5 million. Other top donors include retailers such as Home Depot and Target with $1 million each and 7-Eleven and associated committees with more than $600,000.

About $1.3 million has been raised so far to oppose Prop 36. 

We expect both figures to grow substantially. Additionally, this measure is projected to increase the cost of government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually due to increased prison populations and associated costs.

Support & Opposition

The measure is supported by major retailers (Walmart, Home Depot, Target, Walgreens), California Republican Party, California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Retailers Association, Mayors London Breed (San Francisco) and Matt Mahan (San Jose), Assemblymember James Ramos, and Supervisor Matt Dorsey. It’s worth noting that otherwise liberal members of TogetherSF Action’s ‘That’s Fentalife!’ coalition who are in recovery themselves actively worked to get this measure on the ballot and are strongly in favor of its passage.
The opposition is led bycriminal justice reform groups and human rights activists, who have been outspoken against altering Proposition 47, saying that it will lead to an increase in the state’s prison population and the associated costs. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which is composed of criminal defense attorneys, has called it “draconian.”