California’s Prop. 36 promised to get tough on crime. Republicans demand funding for it
California’s Republican lawmakers are calling on their Democratic colleagues to put money behind Proposition 36 — last year’s tough-on-crime ballot measure that passed overwhelmingly. So far, Democratic lawmakers haven’t indicated whether they will.
Prop. 36 increases penalties for some drug and theft-related offenses. Gov. Gavin Newsom was vocally against the measure, arguing it targeted low-level non-violent offenses and would be a “real setback” for the state’s progress on criminal justice reform and away from mass incarceration.
Newsom and other opponents pointed out there was no funding for the measure’s various provisions, including increased law enforcement, a higher court workload, and more people slated for drug and mental health treatment.
Republican lawmakers say they are particularly focused on funding the drug court and treatment side of the new law. Prop. 36 created a new class of crime called a “treatment-mandated felony,” whereby people who’ve been convicted of two or more drug crimes, such as possessing or selling drugs, can avoid jail time by completing a drug treatment program.
In the state budget Newsom proposed last month, there was no money dedicated to helping counties implement drug treatment programs. During a recent meeting of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Republican lawmakers like Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, said finding that funding is one of their priorities.
“I would expect that when we have a mandate from our citizens,” Seyarto said, “that we would be funding everything we need to implement.”
Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said he and other Republican colleagues sent a letter to the governor in December requesting funding for the proposition, which went unanswered. During the hearing, he defended the decision of the proposition’s authors to put it forward even without new funding.
“I think it was entirely appropriate for Proposition 36 to state the priority of the people and then leave it up to the budget writers to figure out how to meet the priority of the people,” Niello said during the hearing.
A spokesperson for the governor declined to comment on whether there should be money in the budget for Prop. 36.
During the hearing, Department of Finance Chief Deputy Director Erika Li said their office anticipates a few thousand more people would be incarcerated in prisons due to Prop. 36, and the state would absorb the costs.
Could cost millions
An assessment by the San Diego County public administrator found it would cost the county roughly $58 million to put Prop. 36 into place. It would include hiring 230 more sheriff’s deputies and paying for more drug treatment, which costs up to $10,500 per referral.
The California Legislative Analysts’ Office estimated it would cost local governments “in the tens of millions annually” to implement the changes.
One source of state funding for substance use and mental health treatment is Proposition 47, passed in 2014, which sets aside savings from incarcerating fewer people in state prisons, and distributes the money to counties as grants. Those grants could pay for some of the treatment mandated in Prop. 36.
Ironically, Prop 36., which rolled back some of the changes of Prop. 47, is expected to result in more incarcerations, thus reducing future years’ savings.
Greg Totten leads the California District Attorneys Association and campaigned for Prop. 36. He said despite the Los Angeles wildfires making it a tough budget year, the legislature needs to begin investing in more treatment.
“It’s going to take time,” he said. “It’s going to take a concerted effort, and it’s going to require funding.”
How much funding, if any, Democrats will agree to is still unclear. A spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, R-Salinas, said the lawmaker was meeting with other Democratic Assembly members this week to discuss the budget.
Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, declined to weigh in on whether more funding was needed.
Lawmakers face a June deadline to pass the budget.
This story was originally published February 6, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
