Of the 10 California propositions on the November ballot, perhaps the most contentious is one that would boost penalties for repeated thefts and drug offenses including fentanyl sale and possession.
Proposition 36 is designed to undo some parts of Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that reduced some felonies to misdemeanors in an attempt to reduce California’s prison population.
Proponents say the new ballot measure gives prosecutors and judges options for dealing with serial thefts and crimes involving fentanyl and other hard drugs including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin. Critics warn it could reverse criminal justice reforms, restoring policies of mass incarceration.
What Proposition 36 Does
Proposition 36 would add fentanyl to laws against trafficking hard drugs and possessing them while carrying a firearm. It would allow judges to impose state prison sentences instead of county jail time for drug dealers who sell in large quantities, and increase the terms of their sentences.
The measure would reinstate penalties for dealers whose drugs kill or seriously harm a person, and warn convicted drug dealers and manufacturers that they could face murder charges if their drugs cause a death.
Adding a carrot to those sticks, it authorizes court-ordered treatment programs for people convicted of drug offenses. Those who finish the programs would see their charges dismissed. But defendants who refuse or fail the programs could serve up to three years in state prison.
It would also crack down on smash-and-grab robberies and shoplifting. Thefts under $950 are now charged as misdemeanors. But under Proposition 36 they could be combined and charged as felonies if multiple related thefts total more than $950, or if the person has two prior convictions.
Three or more people stealing goods together can also be charged with felonies, to crack down on organized theft rings. The measure adds extra prison time for felony crimes that seriously injure someone, with even more years if the victim is elderly or a child.
How Proponents Think It Could Cut Crime: San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan sees the measure as a “balanced reform” that offers a graduated approach to sentencing theft and drug crimes. For instance, if someone has two misdemeanor theft convictions, prosecutors can evaluate whether to allow another grace period, or charge a third offense as a felony.
“If it looks like it is separated in time, there is a long time between the two convictions then maybe another chance is appropriate,” Stephan said. “If someone is clearly taking advantage and is a habitual criminal, you can use the option to encourage treatment, or stop the behavior by sending them to jail.”
She said the provision for court-ordered drug treatment is essential to prevent deaths from fentanyl, a powerful opioid that’s mixed with many street drugs. Oftentimes people who are addicted don’t seek help on their own, but must be compelled to get treatment. Proposition 36 could actually reduce incarceration rates by breaking the cycle of crime and drug use before it escalates, Stephan argues.
“It can end up reducing incarceration in my opinion, because you’re not waiting until someone goes on an upward trajectory of criminal behavior,” she said.
Why Critics Think It’s a Step Backwards: Mitchelle Woodson, legal director of the criminal justice organization Pillars of the Community, argues that Proposition 36 won’t reduce crime rates, but would put more people in jail or prison.
“There will be a disproportionate impact on Black and brown people who are incarcerated for long periods of time, for these kinds of low level offenses,” she said.
Court-ordered drug treatment isn’t a solution to addiction, Woodson said, arguing that recovery works better when people choose to seek care.
Proposition 36 could increase state costs by tens to hundreds of millions of dollars by increasing the prison population. That money would be better spent on drug rehabilitation, mental health treatment and housing, she said.
“We are in favor of community-based programs that address the root causes of why people commit these crimes in the first place, and provide the resources to help people get on their feet,” Woodson said.
Is David Alvarez Trying to Dump Steve Padilla’s Landfill Bill?
Environmental groups opposed to plans for a new South County landfill are supporting a bill by state Sen. Steve Padilla to block any new landfills in the Tijuana Rivershed. They say Assemblymember David Alvarez, in a neighboring district, is trying to block that legislation.
I contacted Alvarez and his office, but didn’t hear back.
Our editor Scott Lewis wrote about the proposed facility in east Otay Mesa. The project developer, National Enterprises, says San Diego needs more room to put its trash. But Padilla pointed to a CalEPA statement that the region won’t need new landfill space until at least 2053. And if we did need it, we wouldn’t put it in the catastrophically polluted Tijuana Rivershed, the project’s critics say.
“To locate a landfill in this highly sensitive region has always been a risk,” said Stephanie Peck, with Protect Otay Foothills.
Padilla’s bill would prohibit the Regional Water Quality Control Board from approving the facility, but Peck said Alvarez isn’t a fan. She called his office and met with Alvarez’s staff: “We’ve never received any feedback on why he would oppose this bill.”
On a separate note:: Earlier this session Alvarez introduced a bill to pave the way for more affordable housing in the Coastal Zone, but Thursday he withdrew it, saying it had been altered beyond recognition. His bill would have made it easier for developers in that area to claim density bonuses, which let them build more units if they include affordable housing in the mix.
But compromise amendments made him question his own legislation. This week the state Senate Appropriations Committee dismissed AB 2560 at Alvarez’ request. Recent amendments would give the Coastal Commission too much authority over housing development, he wrote:
“The changes made by the amendments would not serve the purpose of requiring coastal cities to build housing, and, in many ways, act against it.”
The Sacramento Report runs every Friday and is part of a partnership with CalMatters. Do you have tips, ideas or questions? Send them to me at deborah@voiceofsandiego.org.
Clarification: This post has been updated to clarify that Stephanie Peck met with David Alvarez’s staff.
Build more prisons and fill them.