2024 California Proposition 36

Proposition 36

November 5, 2024 (2024-11-05)
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
Choice Votes % Yes 6,720,556 70.36% No 2,830,518 29.64% Valid votes 9,551,074 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 9,551,074 100.00%
Yes   80-90%   70-80%   60-70%   50-60%
Source: California Secretary of State[1]

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem Rep 2000 Dem Rep 2004 Dem Rep 2008 Dem Rep 2012 Dem Rep 2016 Dem Rep 2020 Dem Rep 2024 Dem Rep U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 2024 sp 2028 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp 2024 16th 20th sp 30th 45th 47th v t e
State government Executive Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 2026 Lieutenant governor 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Attorney general 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of state 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Board of equalization 2018 2022 Legislature Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 (79th sp) 2022 (17th sp) 2024 Special Judiciary Court of appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006 Elections by year 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
State propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1978 6 8 13 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 70 71 72 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020–2029 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2022 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 33 34 35 36 Full list v t e
Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Board of supervisors 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Ballot measures 1980 A 2008 R 2012 B J 2016 M Elections 2020 2022 2024 Los Angeles Mayor 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (sp) 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2022 City attorney 2009 Ballot measures 1986 U 2017 S Elections 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 (sp) 2020 2022 2023 (sp) 2024 Long Beach Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t e
Orange County Orange County Board of supervisors 2018 2020 2022 2024 District attorney 2018 Anaheim Mayor 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Irvine Mayor 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Costa Mesa Municipal 1947 1953 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
Sacramento Mayor 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
San Diego County San Diego County Board of supervisors 2020 San Diego Mayor 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (sp) 1984 1986 (sp) 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 (sp) 2008 2012 2013–14 (sp) 2016 2020 2024 City attorney 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 City council 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special v t e
San Francisco Mayor 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1931 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (recall) 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 (sp) 2019 2024 District attorney 2019 2022 (recall) 2022 (sp) 2024 Board of supervisors 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Board of education 2018 2022 (recall) Ballot measures 2024 G Elections 2004 Mar Nov 2005 2006 Jun Nov 2007 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2011 2012 Jun Nov 2013 2022 Feb v t e
San Jose Mayor 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 v t e
Other localities Bakersfield Mayoral elections: 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Fresno Mayoral elections: 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Oakland Mayoral elections: 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 Riverside Mayoral elections: 1997 2001 2005 2009 2012 2016 2020 2024 San Bernardino Mayoral elections: 2005 2009 2014 2018 2022 Stockton Mayoral elections: 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
v t e

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 approved in the 2024 general election.^[2] 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.^[3]

The proposition will allow for the authorization of the following:^[3]

• Increasing the penalty for repeat shoplifters (two or more past convictions) of $950 in value or less from a misdemeanor to a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison.
• Allowing felony sentences for certain crimes such as theft or damage to property to be lengthened if the crime is committed by a group of three or more people.
• Requiring that sentences for certain felonies such as drug dealing be served in prison.
• Allowing people convicted of possession of illegal drugs (specifically those who possess certain drugs such as methamphetamines or fentanyl or those who have two or more past convictions for drug crimes) to be charged with a "treatment-mandated felony" instead of a misdemeanor in some cases. Upon completion of treatment, charges will be dismissed. Upon failure to complete treatment, charges stand and include up to three years in state prison.
• Requiring courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs (such as methamphetamines, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine) that kill someone. This could allow for murder charges in the future if they later sell or provide illegal drugs to someone who dies.

In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified several felonies as misdemeanors. Proposition 47 passed with nearly 60%^[4] of votes across California, and was supported by the editorial board of the New York Times,^[5] the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times,^[6] and the American Civil Liberties Union.^[7] 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,^[8] as well as arguments for the reallocation of funds to other crime prevention measures.^[7]

In the first five months after Proposition 47 was instated, prison populations dropped by approximately 9,000.^[4] 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.^[8] 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.”^[8][9]

In addition to making a significant reduction in prison populations, Proposition 47 reallocated savings from state incarceration costs in the following ways:^[7] 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.^[7] 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.^[10]

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.^[11] 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.^[12] 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.^[13] 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.^[14]

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^[15] and then proposed a competing ballot measure,^[16] 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.^[17]

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).^[18]

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."^[19]

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 or 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."^[20]

Prop 36 will cost the state tens of millions of dollars in policing and incarceration,^[21] funds that currently support mental health and drug treatment programs.^[22] Moreover, mandated treatment has been demonstrated not to be effective, with studies pointing out that it actually causes more harm through its involuntary nature.^[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.

The reduction of drug and theft-related felony charges to misdemeanor charges by Proposition 47 of 2014 has saved the state of California nearly one billion dollars in the last ten years, by incarcerating fewer people and imposing shorter sentences. 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. The 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."^[19]

• Law and order (politics)
• Penal populism