California Democrats divided over changes to Proposition 47

The battle lines are being drawn in a bitter feud between centrist Democrats and progressives in California over changes to Proposition 47, a decade-old law blamed for the rise in drugs and theft in the state.

California voters will decide in November on Proposition 36, a measure that will determine how the state should punish people who have repeatedly been convicted of stealing or committed crimes involving fentanyl, a deadly synthetic opioid up to 100 times more potent than morphine.

Proposition 36 will ask voters to change parts of the infamous Proposition 47, a measure that was passed in 2014 and faulted for spikes in retail and personal property theft, open-air drug dens, and other crimes that largely go unpunished in California.

A group of influential progressive state lawmakers rallied against Proposition 36 on Monday, calling it an “expensive” crime reform that would unfairly penalize people stuck in poverty or living in lower-income neighborhoods.

“For decades, Californians have been calling for real safety solutions and to address the root causes that lead to symptoms like petty crime and substance abuse,” said California Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, the incoming vice chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. “Because we know where petty crime and substance abuse occur. It occurs in the same communities that have underfunded schools, that don’t have food infrastructure, that don’t have public health infrastructure, where the rent is too high.”

Bryan said Proposition 36 is similar to the “bipartisan failures” from past decades that sent thousands of black and brown people to prison for low-level, nonviolent drug and property crimes.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, a member of the Progressive Caucus, has also spoken out on the ballot measure, telling the Los Angeles Times that even though there was an “uptick in crime after the pandemic,” it had leveled off and that now “is not the time” to enact Proposition 36.

State Sen. Melissa Hurtado disagrees.

“Proposition 36 is a crucial and long-overdue measure,” she said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “We must do more to hold bad actors accountable and protect our communities from rising crime and rampant drug use that’s plaguing our communities. Californians need to feel safe in their communities, and this measure is the right approach to get the Golden State back on track.”

Hurtado is among a growing group of Democrats who have thrown their support behind the measure. Among them is state Sen. Tom Umberg, a former drug policy adviser for former President Bill Clinton.

“I fully support Proposition 36,” he told the Washington Examiner in a statement. “This initiative addresses the devastating impact of homelessness, the fentanyl epidemic, and retail theft that are wreaking havoc on our communities and small businesses.”

Assemblyman James Ramos also backs the measure.

“For too long, we’ve failed to address this problem, and now crime and illegal drug use are out of control and plaguing our communities,” he said. “By supporting Proposition 36, I stand with my fellow legislators to fix this crisis.”

Proposition 47 dates back to 2011 and came about after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision against the state that required reducing the prison population to avoid overcrowding. State prisons had been functioning at 180% over capacity in 2010.

A federal panel ordered California state prisons to reduce its population to 137.5% within two years. State lawmakers approved a bill that changed how the state prosecuted low-level offenses, allowing some lawbreakers to spend time in county jails rather than transferred to state prisons.

Liberal advocacy groups then pushed for Proposition 47 as another way to reduce the prison population. The measure, introduced in 2014, had three major components. It included reducing some felonies to misdemeanors, giving “time served” credit to prisoners who had been convicted of felonies that had become misdemeanors, and using the money saved from reduced jail time for programs in local communities.

Over the past decade, California has been able to bank about $100 million annually, which has resulted in sentencing changes made under Proposition 47.

The measure also reduced most drug possession offenses to misdemeanors and increased the threshold for misdemeanors to $950 from $450. It allowed more than 1 million people to reduce nonviolent felonies on their record to misdemeanors.

Critics say the law has led to a spike in property crimes. They claim it has made it harder to punish repeat offenders and emboldened people who believe they can steal without facing consequences. Proposition 47 has been blamed for large retailers, including Macy’s, leaving certain parts of the state, such as San Francisco, where the law has limited law enforcement officers’ ability to go after repeat offenders and solve violent crime. In California, those guilty of misdemeanors do not have to provide DNA samples.

Proposition 36 would tweak Proposition 47. It would add new penalties for some theft and drug offenses and sentencing enhancements that would apply to crime. It would also mandate treatment for some drug crimes.

Most notably, it would add fentanyl to the list of “hard drugs,” which include cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. Hard drugs are ‘felony drugs.”

Under Proposition 36, it would be up to a judge to sentence someone possessing any amount of hard drugs if the person has two or more drug-related offenses on their record. It would also allow judges to determine whether a person is eligible for drug treatment. If a person successfully completes the court-mandated drug treatment, their charges would be dismissed.

Proposition 36 also gives the state the power to go after hard drug dealers whose fentanyl kills or injures someone who uses it. When it comes to theft, Proposition 36 would make theft of money or property worth $950 or less a felony if the person has two or more theft-related crimes on their record.

Proposition 36 is endorsed by San Francisco Mayor London Breed, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has spoken out against the measure, arguing that Proposition 36 would not reduce retail theft.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“They’re lying to you,” Newsom said. “That initiative has nothing to do with retail theft. That initiative is about going back to the 1980s and the War on Drugs.”

Instead, Newsom recently addressed the matter by signing 10 bills relating to property and drug crime.