Californian voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36 last November over the protests of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). 

Now advocates for the popular ballot measure are frustrated Newsom didn’t include funds to help implement key tenets of Proposition 36 in the annual state budget, a $322 billion proposal that the governor’s office released last month. They’re pushing his Democratic allies in the state legislature to allocate funding toward provisions in the crime reform measure that toughened penalties for some drug offenses while allowing qualifying offenders to remove a felony from their record and avoid jail time if they completed a drug treatment program.

Because Proposition 36 was passed without any provisions included for funding, counties trying to implement drug treatment programs need millions in financial aid from the state’s budget to implement the new law, advocates say. 

“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,” Republican state Sen. Roger Niello said during a recent hearing before the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. 

Republican state Sen. Kelly Seyarto echoed similar sentiments during the hearing. He particularly criticized the Newsom administration for not funneling money toward implementing Proposition 36 after the governor allocated billions toward another ballot measure passed last March that expanded housing and treatment for homeless people with mental health and substance abuse problems. 

“We don’t seem to be funding Prop. 36 very well, while we are funding Prop. 1 that barely passed,” he complained. “Prop 36 passed with 70% [support] in every county. Where is the funding for that?”

“I would expect that when we have a mandate from our citizens, that we would be funding everything we need to implement,” he continued. 

In December, Seyaro and Niello were two of 14 California GOP legislators who sent a letter to Newsom, requesting he prioritize allocating funding toward Proposition 36 “in the upcoming budget cycle.”

“The success of Proposition 36’s treatment-focused approach depends heavily on the availability of well-funded mental health and substance abuse services, which are critical for breaking cycles of addiction and reducing recidivism. I have long advocated for self-sufficiency to be at the forefront of any reform program and it is clear with the overwhelming passage this is also a priority of Californians. These programs require significant funding to be scaled statewide, ensuring that services are accessible and impactful to individuals,” the lawmakers wrote. 

The top Republican in the California State Assembly pressed Newsom even harder in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

“California voters were crystal clear — they want accountability for criminals and treatment for people struggling with addiction. It’s inexcusable that Democrats would shortchange those priorities because they think they know better than their constituents. With billions to waste on high-speed rail and freebies for illegal immigrants, California clearly has the resources to fund Prop. 36 — the far-left extremists who run the Democrat party just don’t want to,” Republican Assembly Leader James Gallagher said.

The head of the California District Attorneys Association, who campaigned for Proposition 36, also warned the clock is ticking on work to get funding approved. 

“It’s going to take time,” Greg Totten told the Sacramento Bee. “It’s going to take a concerted effort, and it’s going to require funding.”

During the recent hearing, representatives from the state’s Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office suggested that savings from another 2014 ballot measure called Proposition 47 would be allocated toward Proposition 36. 

“So for [fiscal] 2025-2026 right now, we’re projecting 88 million going into those Prop. 47 grants. As Proposition 36’s impacts realize over the next several years, those Prop. 47 dollars will decrease, and there will be, in theory, more money available in the general fund to pay for incarcerated people coming into prison because of Prop. 36,” a staffer said.