Voters reject California’s bid to end cash bail

California voters by a referendum overturned a 2018 law that aimed to end the practice of requiring many criminal defendants to post cash bail as a condition of leaving jail before trial.

Proposition 25 was one of three criminal justice measures that voters saw on their ballots.

Another, Proposition 20, would have restored some tough-on-crime sentences that voters reduced in previous initiatives over the past decade. It failed, with 62% of voters rejecting the measure seeking stricter criminal penalties.

The third measure, Proposition 17, restores the voting franchise to people who have finished serving their prison sentence. It passed, with 59% of voters supporting it.

Proposition 25, which sought to end the use of money bail in California, was a referendum on a 2018 law signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. It would have replace money bail with a computer algorithm-assisted risk assessment model to determine who’s released from jail.

The measure trailed throughout election night, with 55% of voters rejecting it.

“We were so glad to see record levels of voter participation in this election, and we are very pleased with the results reported so far,” said Mike Gatto, spokesman for the No on Prop 25 Campaign. “While votes remain to be counted, we’re confident that voters understand that Prop 25 is unfair, unsafe, and costly, with diverse opposition from all ends of the political spectrum. Like everyone else, we’re monitoring the results for updates.”

The bail referendum, Prop. 25, had support from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party, argue that cash bail props up a system of racial disparity. They argue that eliminating cash bail will be a move toward a more equitable justice system.

Opponents of Proposition 25 include the bail industry, which views the ballot measure as an existential thread, but also certain civil rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Equal Justice Now.

These latter groups contend that the new system created by Prop. 25 would disproportionately affect people of color because the risk assessment model that would be used is inherently biased. They say that it could result in people being held in jail without any chance of release.

Under the current system, when someone is arrested, a judge determines bail based on the alleged crime, the person’s criminal history and the judge’s perception of whether the person will make court dates. Judges rely on a bail schedule that sets a dollar amount that a person must produce before being released based on the crime alleged.

As this amount can often be in the thousands of dollars, people often turn to bail bondsmen, who typically charge 10% of the bail amount, non-refundable, and who are responsible for the defendant appearing at court hearings.

The ballot measure would have turned some theft offenses into potential felonies and made it more difficult for certain incarcerated people to get early release and would crack down on repeat probation violators.

Prop. 20, the measure seeking stricter criminal sentences, was supported by a coalition of law enforcement, retail representatives and victims rights groups, who argue that the previous reforms of Prop. 47 and 57 led to unintended consequences such as a rise of thefts in the state.

The ballot measure was opposed by civil rights groups as well as some victims rights organizations and some district attorneys, who argued that that the ballot measure would undo decades worth of criminal justice reform efforts.

This story was originally published November 3, 2020 at 9:23 PM.