Prop. 36: Cracking Down on Theft & Drug Crime
Proposition 36 is being described as perhaps the most contentious proposition on the ballot in California this election. What is this proposition all about and why is it causing such an uproar?
Proposition 36 is known as the “Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative.”[1] Essentially, this proposition seeks to overturn changes enacted back in 2014 via Proposition 47. Proposition 47 was on the ballot to “Change certain theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.”[2] It looked primarily at two categories of crime: theft and drug possession.
For theft, there were two types defined: shoplifting and petty theft. Shoplifting is theft of property from a commercial establishment, while petty theft is theft of property not from a commercial establishment. The proposition reduced both types of theft committed under a total of $950 to a misdemeanor rather than a felony, and the maximum sentence available was lowered to 6 months in jail. In regards to drug possession, it essentially made the same changes, in that it moved certain types of drug possession also from a felony to a misdemeanor, thereby making them punishable by up to just one year in jail. Simply put, proposition 47 took theft and drug possession and reduced their severity.
Proposition 36, on our ballot this November, is seeking to reverse shoplifting and petty theft back to a felony, if the perpetrator has two or more past convictions related to theft, as well as reinstate the maximum sentence to up to three years.[3] For drug possession, it would also reverse the crime back to a felony, but it would specifically be a “treatment-mandated felony,” instead of a misdemeanor. Specifically, this applies to people who (1) possess certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) and (2) have two or more past convictions for some drug crimes (such as possessing or selling drugs). Those charged with this type of felony would receive treatment, like drug treatment, rather than time in prison, and if they finish treatment, their charges would be dismissed. If they do not finish treatment, then they could be sentenced to prison time.[4] There is a third change made by Proposition 36 which was not a part of the original changes made in 2014, specifically those who sell drugs – the proposition would require courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if someone who they provided or sold drugs to was killed by those drugs.[5]
The main thrust of this proposition boils down to classification – Proposition 47 made some crimes less serious by classifying them as misdemeanors, while Proposition 36 seeks to reclassify them back to felonies. For context, what is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? A misdemeanor is a less serious crime for which the maximum sentence in jail is one year, and the maximum fine is $1,000.[6] Examples of misdemeanors include being drunk in public, trespassing, and reckless driving. A felony is a more serious crime, wherein the maximum prison sentence is more than one year. Examples of felonies include assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and murder. This classification matters because it determines what the possibilities for punishment are, like the length of jail time or the fines imposed.
Why did Proposition 47 pass in 2014 to enact these changes? Why was there a movement to reduce these crimes to a misdemeanor in the first place? In 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the State of California to reduce its prison population by 46,000 inmates. The Supreme Court told California its prisons were overcrowded, and because of that, the state needed to find a way to reduce the prison population and keep it at a lower level. [7] Why was prison overcrowding seen as an issue that was taken up by the Supreme Court? There were two court cases – Coleman vs. Schwarzenegger and Plata vs. Schwarzenegger – both involving inmates with serious physical or mental health conditions. The argument was that medical care for inmates vastly departed from the medically accepted standard of care, resulting in a violation of the 8th Amendment – which prevents the use of cruel and unusual punishment. These cases argued that prisons were overcrowded and were not adequately staffed to handle the volume of inmates, and so because of that, the inmates were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment through the form of severely inadequate healthcare. Unfortunately, at the time, California did not have an adequate budget to build additional prison facilities. So, the Supreme Court targeted overcrowding as the main issue behind the deficient healthcare, and the Supreme Court mandated the reduction of the number of inmates, as well as initiatives to keep the number of inmates at a certain threshold. [8]
Proposition 47 directly addressed this problem because in addition to keeping future convicts of shoplifting or drug possession out of jail, it also allowed currently convicted felons to petition the court for resentencing so that they would be reclassified to a misdemeanor and their sentence would be shortened or ended with time served.[9] Effectively, the new requirements Proposition 47 put place were used retroactively by those formerly convicted of a felony, thus reducing the prison population. This is important to understand, because it would be easy to look at a proposition relating to crime and completely miss the associated policy implications it would have. To make an informed decision, we need to see clearly the underlying intention for the reduction of crimes to a misdemeanor; it wasn’t simply a classification issue at its root, it was an issue with the prison system as a whole that sought its solution in weaker punishment of crime and in shorter sentencing.
Why is Proposition 36 coming up now? There was actually an initiative back in 2020 to roll back the changes made by Prop. 47. Proposition 20 would have given the ability for shoplifting and other types of theft to be charged as felonies rather than misdemeanors, along with a few other changes. However, it was defeated by a 62% No to 38% Yes vote.[10] But even since just 2020, more communities have been impacted by crimes like shoplifting and petty theft.
Proposition 36 was introduced for this election by a group called Californians for Safer Communities. The group cites the effects of rising retail theft on small businesses in California as well as the impact of the fentanyl epidemic on young people as the main drivers for the proposition.[11] The proposition has been endorsed by the San Francisco Mayor,[12] the San Jose Mayor,[13] and the San Diego Mayor,[14] as well as several other prominent Democrats, due to the impacts that theft and drug use have had on their cities. This support signals that the issue is not split across party lines. In fact, a new campaign called Common Sense for Safety has also launched in support of the proposition, as an outlet for those who align with the Democratic Party to support the initiative and show this issue crosses party lines and the solutions proposed should not be seen as partisan politics, but rather are common sense responses to the challenges facing many California communities today.[15] Retail chains are even putting their money behind the proposition, retailers like Walmart ($2.5 million), Target ($1.5 million), and Home Depot ($1 million).”[16]
What effects are they feeling that is motivating them to pour so much money into this campaign? If you look at crime data from 2014 to today, it doesn’t appear like theft has increased. Yet, we see these groups calling for change because they have experienced rising crime. How do we reconcile these statistics with the experiences of everyday Californians and business owners?
The biggest changes over the last ten years are the likelihood of crime like theft being reported, and the likelihood of perpetrators of this crime being arrested or charged. A study conducted by KQED News showed that in 2013, 15% of theft cases resulted in an arrest; by 2022 that figure had dropped to 6%.[17] In other words, over 90% of instances of theft that are reported to police do not result in any arrest being made. This can be attributed to a variety of factors. The first is that while Proposition 47 does not prohibit the arrest of perpetrators of theft, it could be disincentivizing police who know that an arrest for stealing under $950 of goods will result in a misdemeanor that usually comes with little to no jail time or fines. The District Attorney of Yolo County, Jeff Reisig, said, “The reality in California is that misdemeanors do not result in any actionable consequence or deterrence. Now, we can argue back and forth on whether that’s right or wrong. I’m just telling you, that’s how it is.”[18] If police know that arresting these thieves won’t result in any action, you can see how it would make sense that many would forego these arrests entirely. Another factor involved is the lack of resources that police have to respond. According to a study by the Public Policy Institute of California, the number of patrol officers in the state has decreased by 13.2% from 2008 to 2021. The number of officers today are the lowest they have been since at least 1991.[19] If police have fewer and fewer resources to respond to calls, it makes sense that they have to prioritize more serious crimes, like felonies, over less serious crimes, like misdemeanors – which again they know will not even be prosecuted most of the time.
In addition to falling rates of arrests, there are also declining rates of actual reporting of theft when it happens. Most retailers encourage their employees not to step in when there is theft. The Police Chief of San Francisco said that this apathy that stores and retailers have adopted is what is fueling the brazenness of criminals – they know they can walk in and out of a store with merchandise and they won’t be confronted. He also said that businesses have been creating their own thresholds for when they will report theft to the police.[20] There is a special committee the California Assembly put together to tackle retail theft, and the chair of that committee – Santa Monica Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur – has said that in his conversations with retailers, many have said they don’t report theft to police.[21] This sentiment is further echoed by Rachel Michelin, who is the President and CEO of the California Retailers Association. She reports that store owners don’t want negative attention for reporting theft, especially when police are busy responding to other calls.[22]
Meanwhile, there is also an uptick in the number of reoffenders. An independent study by the California State Auditor found that “theft convictions among those who reoffended four or more times increased by 14 percentage points after the implementation of Proposition 47. The law enforcement agencies we reviewed asserted that reduced sentences are driving the increase in individuals committing multiple theft offenses.”[23]
If you take all of these factors into consideration, it makes sense that the overall statistics regarding theft across the state of California don’t appear to have risen after 2014 – because these thefts aren’t being reported, and if they are reported then the perpetrators aren’t being arrested and charged with a crime – and if crimes aren’t reported and charged, then they won’t show up in crime statistics overall. But even then, there are still specific counties within California that have seen a notable increase in their crime statistics. One prime example is LA county. Shoplifting reports from 2022-2023 showed an 81% increase.[24] Sacramento county saw a similar increase of 70% between 2019 and 2023.[25] It just takes a quick google search to see the laundry list of stores that have either closed or left California, citing crime as their reason for doing so. Just in the Bay Area alone, the following stores closed their doors due to the impacts of this rising crime:
- Whole Foods, which was only open for 13 months,
- Nordstrom, which closed two locations,
- Target, which closed several store locations,
- In-N-Out, which closed its only location in Oakland,
- Denny’s, which had been located in Oakland for over 54 years, and
- Macy’s, which closed its most iconic Union Square location.[26]
It’s safe to say the argument that retail theft in California is overblown is just not true, because for those of us living in these counties, we are directly feeling the impacts of it.
Proposition 36 is also meant to address the ongoing drug epidemic we are seeing worsen in our state. The types of drugs addressed in the proposition language are specifically fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.[27] What are the statistics on drug possession since proposition 47 lowered the crime to a misdemeanor and reduced the allowed sentence? The death rate from fentanyl alone has increased by a factor of 10 just from the years 2015-2019, and it’s only worsened in more recent years. The death rate from any opioid increased from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 people to 7.9 deaths per 100,000 people between 2011 and 2019.[28] Additionally, when it comes to the flow of drugs in California, there is a serious crisis related to the trafficking of drugs into our state. Fentanyl seizures increased by over 1,000% just since 2021.[29] In fact, drug offenses are the largest category of misdemeanor arrests, according to a study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California. Twenty-five percent of all misdemeanor arrests in 2022 were drug related.[30]
Meanwhile, as the problem grows larger, the Center for Court Innovation, based in New York, conducted a study in 2020 that found that 67% of California drug courts reported significant decreases in caseloads following the passage of Proposition 47. [31] Drug courts offer treatment-based sentencing rather than jail time. Why would a defendant not seek treatment over potential sentencing to jail time? The reason these courts cited is that defendants said there were more favorable court outcomes due to the reduced sentencing, rather than participating in a longer, more intensive, treatment program.[32] Which, again, makes sense, because if you are facing a 9-month drug treatment program that requires you to stop using drugs, versus either less time or no time in jail, you might be willing to roll the dice and take your chances and be right back out and using again.
We can see clearly from all this data on theft and drug crime that these are serious issues, and they’re only getting worse. Proponents of proposition 36 believe that by reinstating the felony charges and longer jail sentence terms reduced by Proposition 47 will help to address and alleviate rising crime and drug abuse.
Who opposes Proposition 36, and what are the arguments against it? Governor Gavin Newsom is staunchly against the proposition. He cites two main reasons against it: first, he cites the prison overcrowding issue that we discussed earlier; second, he cites the costs associated with the upkeep of overcrowded prisons.[33]
On the prison overcrowding issue – the argument that I’m seeing here is essentially, “yes, people are committing crimes, but we don’t have anywhere to put them, so let’s change the standard.” I believe that begs the question, is this the only answer to the prison overcrowding problem? Let’s go back for a moment to those court cases we discussed earlier related to how Proposition 47 ended up on the ballot in the first place. The argument made in those cases, again, was that because prisons were overcrowded, some prisoners were not given the medical care they needed in the time in which they needed it, thus subjecting prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment – a violation of their 8th amendment rights – and so prison overcrowding was the problem that needed to be solved. While this court decision passed 5-4 in the Supreme Court, it was not the only view held.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent to the court’s decision, alongside Justice Clarence Thomas. They begin by writing:
“What has been alleged here, and what the injunction issued by the Court is tailored to remedy, is the running of a prison system with inadequate medical facilities, that may result in the denial of needed medical treatment to a particular prisoner or prisoners, thereby violating, according to our cases, his or their Eight Amendment rights. But the mere existence of the inadequate system does not subject to cruel and unusual punishment the entire prison population in need of medical care, including those who receive it.”[34]
The point Justice Scalia is making here is that the only persons who might have any legal basis for arguing cruel and unusual punishment are those who needed medical treatment and were denied it. This is called standing. A prisoner is not denied his or her 8th amendment rights simply by being part of a system that has some failings, they must experience those failings firsthand before anything has been denied to them and they have any legal standing in the court to argue cruel and unusual punishment. This is important, because we see that the court’s response to the problem is a blanketed one – it is applied to every prisoner in the system, not just the few who could argue inadequate medical care. But for the court to pass a sweeping injunction like the one it did against the state of California, it needs to have basis for why all prisoners have standing and right to such an injunction.
He goes on to say:
“When a district court issues an injunction, it must make a factual assessment of the anticipated consequences of the injunction. And when the injunction undertakes to restructure a social institution, assessing the factual consequences of the injunction is necessarily the sort of predictive judgment that our system of government allocates to other government officials…Three years of law school and familiarity with pertinent Supreme Court precedents give no insight whatsoever into the management of social institutions.”[35]
In other words, even if the Court establishes that all prisoners are being denied their rights, it is not the function of the court to impose solutions upon social institutions, because that is a matter of policy. The courts delegate policymaking to our leaders within government, they don’t prescribe the solutions. The Supreme Court’s judgment that California had to reduce the prison population by 46,000 inmates was baseless and the court was not qualified to make it.
Lastly, in what I think is the most important quote in the dissent, Scalia writes":
“In my view, a court may not order a prisoner’s release unless it determines that the prisoner is suffering from a violation of his constitutional rights, and that his release, and no other relief, will remedy that violation. Thus, if the court determines that a particular prisoner is being denied constitutionally required medical treatment, and the release of that prisoner (and no other remedy) would enable him to obtain medical treatment, then the court can order his release; but a court may not order the release of prisoners who have suffered no violations of their constitutional rights, merely to make it less likely that that will happen to them in the future.”[36]
To release 46,000 inmates regardless of how each one has been treated disregards completely the underlying issues regarding the prison system, and it won’t solve them. Policymakers need to be asking deeper questions, like:
- Why is the California budget so overextended that the concept of building another prison facility isn’t feasible?
- Are there ways to reduce the costs of running these facilities? With all the taxes collected in our state, could more be allocated to our prison system instead of other programs?
- Can medical care be improved for prisoners in other ways, rather than releasing a vast number of inmates? Are there other procedures and programs that can be put in place to monitor physical and mental health?
Until these questions are addressed, the problems will persist, and we will just continually seek ways to release prisoners to avoid addressing them.
It is good to put California’s prison system in perspective. At the time of the Supreme Court ruling, in 2010, California ranked 20th in its incarceration rate for state correctional facilities and was essentially equal to the national average at 439 incarcerations per 100,000 people in California compared to the national average of 437 per 100,000.[37] California wasn’t even close to being the state with the highest percentage of incarcerations in relation to its population, it was 20th. It begs the question, how did 19 other states figure it out without a mandate from the Supreme Court?
A tangible example of this is Texas. In 2010 California had roughly $12 million more people than Texas,[38] but Texas had 51 prisons[39] while California had just 31 prisons.[40] If California had such a higher population, wouldn’t it make sense that it would have more prisoners, related to that higher population? Wouldn’t it then follow that California should prepare itself due to its high population by ensuring it has adequate facilities, similar to other states like Texas? All of this is meant to emphasize the point that California is not unique in having to figure out how to handle its prison population, there are other options available to policymakers if they dig deeper into the root causes of the issue.
The second argument for opposition to the bill is the costs that will be incurred as a result. Proposition 47 reduced prison costs by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which were channeled into in “state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services.”[41] Opponents to Proposition 36 say these costs would once again increase, thereby cutting the funding for these other programs. However, in the actual drafting of the proposition, this fiscal impact is addressed, showing the total expected cost amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget – which is the budget the State uses for public services like prisons.[42] With all of the taxes collected by the state of California, an increased cost of less than one-half of 1 percent of the budget of one fund is putting us over the edge fiscally?
A third argument against the proposition that Governor Newsom has made is that California actually has stricter thresholds for felonies related to theft than other states, like Texas, because the threshold for a felony in California is $950, but the threshold for Texas is much higher at $2,500. He often makes the argument that California has the 10th lowest felony threshold in the country, and so attempts to repeal parts of Proposition 47 are not necessary.
But while the dollar value may be lower than many other states, Texas included, it boils down to how the state decides to punish crime. Texas has a multi-tiered system, where criminals are held accountable with punishments like arrest, jail time, and fines for lower-level offenses. Quoting from the AFPI,
In Texas, theft between $100 and $750 qualifies as a Class B misdemeanor, which carries up to a $2,000 fine and six months in jail. In addition, theft between $750 and $2,500 qualifies as a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to a $4,000 fine and a year in jail. In comparison, most thefts under $950 in California will result in a citation, no fine, and no jail time at all.[43]
It is less about the threshold of becoming a felony, and more about how the state handles all crime. If California will not seriously punish crime until it is classified as a felony, then the only option available to groups interested in addressing these issues is to make crimes felonies so that they will be taken seriously by the state.
Now that we have all the facts, background, history, and statistics covered, what are we to think? After looking into it more deeply, I am convinced that not only should we vote Yes to pass Proposition 36, but that we need even further reforms in the future. Reversing these crimes back to felonies is a good start, but I am not convinced it is addressing the underlying issues. We need reform to our prison systems, which starts with reform to our state budget, which starts with prioritization of the policy issues our tax dollars ought to fund, as well as greater planning to prevent foreseeable issues like an overcrowded prison system in the state with the highest population. We also mentioned the need for greater resources allocated to our police officers, who must choose which crimes to prioritize due to short-staffing and a lack of support.
Ultimately, there are so many underlying issues that have just been bandaided over. But if we just continue to bandaid over them, rather than expose them and work to solve them, the issues will perpetuate, the crime will continue to rise, stores will continue to close, Californians will continue to die of drug overdoses, and our beautiful state will continue to spiral along this path. We need our leaders to have the courage to face the challenges in front of us with honesty, humility, and the conviction to address them head on.
In the meantime, we can do our part by taking the first small step to remove the bandaid off the bullet hole and actually address the bleeding, and we do that by taking the opportunities in front of us. There are a few things we can do:
1. Look at the local candidates on your ballot. Look at the leaders who will represent you and ask, do they have the courage and clarity of conviction to look behind the curtain at the root causes of these issues? One of these positions is our district attorneys. We need District Attorneys who will not overlook rising crime. Do your research now, while you still have several weeks before the election, to see who is running for this position in your district.
2. For the Christian, pray. Pray for leaders who will have the humility to be honest about the problems our state faces and the measures necessary to address them. We care about these issues as Christians because God cares about these issues. He is a God of justice, and He cares about the systems and laws that we have in place to protect our nation’s citizens and uphold order. We want to seek the good around us; rampant crime and drug use isn’t good for our communities. So again, we bring it to the Lord, we pray for wisdom in handling these issues, and we pray for clarity in the hearts and minds of our leaders and fellow voters.
3. Lastly, look at the measure that is in front of you in this election related to these issues – Proposition 36. The decision is with you; you have all the facts before you and are equipped to make an informed decision.
As for me? I’ll be voting YES on Proposition 36.
References:
[1] Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024) - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024).
[2] Judicial Council’s Criminal Justice Services, and Richard Couzens. “Proposition 47 Frequently Asked Questions.” California Courts, November 2016. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Prop47FAQs.pdf.
[3] “Proposition 36.” Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2024/prop36-110524.pdf.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Shouse, Neil. “‘Felony’ Vs ‘Misdemeanor’ - the Difference in California.” Shouse Law Group - Criminal, Immigration, Injury & Employment Lawyers (blog), March 2, 2024. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/felony/what-is-the-difference-between-a-felony-and-a-misdemeanor-under-california-law/#:~:text=Felonies%20and%20misdemeanors%20are%20the,year%20in%20jail%20or%20prison.
[7] Newman, William J., and Charles L. Scott. “Brown V. Plata: Prison Overcrowding in California.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, December 1, 2012. https://jaapl.org/content/40/4/547.long.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Judicial Council’s Criminal Justice Services, and Richard Couzens. “Proposition 47 Frequently Asked Questions.” California Courts, November 2016. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Prop47FAQs.pdf.
[10] Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020) - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020).
[11] Kane, McKenna. “Californians for Safer Communities Announce the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act Qualified for the November Ballot.” CA Safe Communities, June 28, 2024. https://voteyesprop36.com/californians-for-safer-communities-announce-the-homelessness-drug-addiction-and-theft-reduction-act-qualified-for-the-november-ballot/.
[12] Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024) - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024).
[13] “Democratic Legislators Come Out in Support of Proposition 36.” CA Safe Communities, August 12, 2024. https://voteyesprop36.com/democratic-legislators-come-out-in-support-of-proposition-36/.
[14] Safchik, Joey. “Mayor Gloria Supports Efforts to Reform California’s Crime Measure Prop 47.” NBC 7 San Diego, July 10, 2024. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-mayor-todd-gloria-prop-47-reform-california/3562731/.
[15] Zavala, Ashley. “Democratic leaders to launch new campaign supporting California ballot initiative on theft, crime.” KCRA 3, August 13, 2024. https://www.kcra.com/article/campaign-supporting-california-ballot-initiative-on-theft-crime/61869517#.
[16] Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024) - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024).
[17] Lagos, Marisa. “Proposition 47’s Impact on California’s Criminal Justice System.” KQED, July 16, 2024. https://www.kqed.org/news/11975692/prop-47s-impact-on-californias-criminal-justice-system.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Lofstrom, Magnus, Brandon Martin, and Andrew Skelton. “California’s Notable Declines in Law Enforcement Staffing.” Public Policy Institute of California, February 14, 2023. https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-notable-declines-in-law-enforcement-staffing/#:~:text=The%20state%20saw%20a%20sizeable,speaking%2C%20reduces%20by%201.7%25.
[20] Lagos, Marisa. “Proposition 47’s Impact on California’s Criminal Justice System.” KQED, July 16, 2024. https://www.kqed.org/news/11975692/prop-47s-impact-on-californias-criminal-justice-system.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Whisenhut, Ryan. “2023-107 Proposition 47 in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.” California State Auditor, July 25, 2024. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-107/.
[24] Regardie, Jon. “Shoplifting in Los Angeles Soars 81% in 2023.” Crosstown, February 10, 2024. https://xtown.la/2024/02/12/shoplifting-in-city-of-los-angeles-soars-81-in-2023/.
[25] Public Policy Institute of California. “Commercial Burglaries Fell in 2023, but Shoplifting Continued to Rise,” August 2, 2024. https://www.ppic.org/blog/commercial-burglaries-fell-in-2023-but-shoplifting-continued-to-rise/#:~:text=Shoplifting%20then%20jumped%2029%25%20in,highest%20observed%20level%20since%202000.
[26] Carbonaro, Giulia. “Full list of California stores that have closed due to crime.” Newsweek, March 27,2024. https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-california-stores-closed-due-crime-1882924
[27] “Proposition 36.” Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2024/prop36-110524.pdf.
[28] California Health Care Foundation. “Substance Use in California: Prevalence and Treatment.” CALIFORNIA Health Care Almanac, 2022. https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/SubstanceUseDisorderAlmanac2022.pdf.
[29] Gardon, Izzy. “California Seizes Record 62,000 Pounds of Fentanyl | Governor of California.” Governor of California, June 17, 2024. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/02/27/california-seizes-record-62000-pounds-of-fentanyl/.
[30] Lofstrom, Magnus, Brandon Martin, and Andrew Skelton. “Arrests in California.” Public Policy Institute of California, January 12, 2024. https://www.ppic.org/publication/arrests-in-california/#:~:text=Drug%20offenses%20are%20the%20largest,%25%20were%20for%20battery%2Fassault.
[31] Arnold, Aaron, Precious Benally, and Michael Friedrich. “Drug Courts in the Age of Sentencing Reform.” Center for Court Innovation, 2020. https://www.innovatingjustice.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2020-03/report_sentencingreform_03262020.pdf.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Handa, Robert. “California Democrats at Odds Over Proposition 36.” NBC Bay Area, August 14, 2024. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2024/california-democrats-odds-proposition-36/3625880/.
[34] Scalia, Antonin. “BROWN V. PLATA,” n.d. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1233.ZD.html.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Lawrence, Sarah. “CALIFORNIA IN CONTEXT: How Does California’s Criminal Justice System Compare to Other States?,” 2012. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bccj/CA_in_Context_Policy_Brief_Sept_2012_Final.pdf.
[38] US Census Bureau. “Texas Joins California as State With 30-Million-Plus Population.” Census.gov, March 30, 2023. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/03/texas-population-passes-the-30-million-mark-in-2022.html#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20the%20population%20of,states%20stand%20a%20century%20later.
[39] Texas Department of Criminal Justice. “Unit Directory,” 2022. https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/unit_directory/unit_map.html.
[40] California Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation. “List of Adult Institutions.” Division of Adult Institutions (DAI), September 29, 2023. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult-operations/list-of-adult-institutions/.
[41] “Drug and Theft Crimes. [Ballot],” October 11, 2023. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2023-017.
[42] “Proposition 36.” Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2024/prop36-110524.pdf.
[43] Lobel, Matthew, and Richard Maher. “Protecting California’s Retailers From Theft.” Issues, March 26, 2024. https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/protecting-californias-retailers-from-theft#:~:text=The%20Causes%3A%20Ineffective%20Prosecutors%2C%20Weak,over%20the%20last%20few%20years.
