Voters approved Prop. 36 in November. Gavin Newsom ignores it at his own peril | Opinion

When California’s Democratic leadership was in near lockstep against Proposition 36 in November, they were concerned how the prospect of stiffer sentences for repeat drug offenses would lead to more incarceration rather than more treatment.

Now that state voters have resoundingly approved the measure (the California McClatchy Editorial Board was against Prop. 36), the question is whether the Democrats who control the state budget will expand drug treatment services statewide as the better alternative to jail or prison. So far they have shown no interest in doing so.

California’s minority Republican delegation in the Legislature has seized the moral high ground on this issue. It is the Republicans who are now on the side of treatment and the Democrats resisting it.

Unless this logjam breaks in the coming months, as the Legislature develops and finally approves a new state budget for the next fiscal year starting July 1, it appears that the Republicans will be the ones squarely in line with the majority of California voters on this issue while the Democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves.

It is also important to point out that no repeat drug offender will serve a longer sentence in the meantime. Longer sentences under Prop. 36 should only happen if these offenders are offered treatment and refuse.

Our state constitution here is a bit quirky. Had the Legislature passed the very same Prop. 36 as a new statute, it undoubtedly would have been ruled unconstitutional by a California court because it outlined no way to pay the costs of expanded treatment. This is an example of a so-called unfunded mandate, which lawmakers cannot impose per the state constitution and various initiatives passed by voters over the years.

Yet this same constitution allows voters to impose mandates on the government with no new means to fund them. That is precisely what Prop. 36 has done, and this was why the McClatchy California Editorial Board opposed this measure.

But the law is the law, and ignoring the will of the voters is not an option. Prop. 36 clearly envisions a treatment option that has not existed for certain repeat drug offenses. So now Sacramento should be following the direction of voters.

Yet when Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his budget proposal for the coming fiscal year last month, he acted as if Prop. 36 and this new mandate for treatment did not exist. That has led California’s leading Republicans to write a letter to Newsom, now that they can play the role of champions for treatment as opposed to incarceration.

Granted, Newsom and the Democrats in charge will likely face a daunting challenge during this coming budget session. Huge questions remain unanswered from the Trump administration on whether it will cover public costs of the Los Angeles fires or gut federal funding for needs such as Medi-Cal health care, shifting the burden to the state. And treatment isn’t cheap, with the Legislative Analyst’s Office predicting “tens of millions” of dollars in new local costs.

Yet California voters, who seem particularly tired of the ineffective response to the state’s chronic homeless crisis, are fed up. They wanted stiffer sentences as a threat to motivate drug treatment. And they don’t care about the challenges of expanding local mental health systems to increase treatment options.

Only a few brave Democrats in the Legislature, such as state Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, are trying to implement Prop. 36.

“It’s really disappointing and troubling that (Democrats) are not putting their money where their mouths have been,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, a leading force behind Prop. 36.

Newsom’s inaction on drug treatment threatens any legacy he may have on mental health treatment, both his reforms to promote treatment and his March proposition to provide billions more for mental health treatment and housing.

Drug addiction, as Reisig accurately points out, is its own form of mental illness. “The governor, I think, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.”

Yes, mental health treatment costs money. The public cost of allowing an addiction to go untreated is weighty as well. The Democrats have just given the Republicans a powerful issue they should exploit to the fullest, month after month, until the Democrats get over an election defeat and go about the people’s business.

This story was originally published February 17, 2025 at 5:00 AM.