Riverside County Cities Adopt Resolutions In Support Of Prop 36

This November, California voters will determine the fate of 10 ballot initiatives, including Proposition 36, also known as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.

The ballot initiative seeks to rollback portions of Proposition 47, which was approved by voters in 2014 and changed certain drug and theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

“I think from our vantage point, Prop 47 was written based on, I would say, a false premise that law enforcement was only interested in incarceration as a deterrent for crime,” Smith said. “And Prop 36 is a reaction to some of the core decision making that went into Prop 47 and, I would say, the public seeing the results of the downsides of Prop 47.”

According to Smith, Prop 47 eliminated court and law enforcement tools that he said were used to incentivize people convicted for drug or petty theft charges to seek drug and mental health treatment, while also drastically limiting criminal penalties for theft that he said could be tied directly to what he called a “dramatic spike in theft.”

But since 2014, when Prop 47 went into effect, data from the California Department of Justice shows that there has been a decrease in the total number of reported property crimes, including thefts, both in Riverside County and throughout the state.

If approved by voters, Prop 36 would increase punishment for some theft and drug crimes, create a new court process for certain drug possession charges and includes a piece called Alexandra’s Law, which would require courts to warn those convicted of distributing illegal drugs that they could face murder charges if the illegal drugs they sell or provide to someone result in that person’s death.

“I think it addresses real problems that we see in our community, that we’re seeing in our state, and there are issues that Prop 47 created for us,” Smith said. “We are sort of bearing the brunt of those poorly written laws that Prop 47 implemented and Prop 36 goes a long way towards fixing those problems.”

The city councils of Temecula, Canyon Lake and Riverside have all recently adopted resolutions in support of the proposition.

“This is a no-brainer piece of legislation, because it deals specifically with the quality of life issues that we’ve been plagued with since Proposition 47,” Temecula Police Chief Chris Durham said. “This piece of legislation will deal with your repeat offenders, whether it’s your drug addicts, your drug dealers and your organized retail theft and give the tools necessary for the district attorney’s office to hold them accountable when they’re in court, because right now, it’s just the revolving door of the jail.”

But for Temecula Mayor Pro Tem Brenden Kalfus, supporting this proposition was even more important knowing that Alexandra’s Law, named after 20-year-old Temecula resident Alexandra Capelouto who died in 2019 as a result of fentanyl poisoning, was included in the text of the measure.

“This hits home, because this is in Temecula,” he said. “Alexandra was a Temecula resident, and this happened to her, and moving forward, these criminals [drug dealers] need to be prosecuted.”

The efforts of these communities follows a call for support from the League of California Cities, which earlier this summer stated its support for the initiative.

“When councils can speak in a unified voice, it sends a powerful message to their communities that we hear the voices of our residents, we hear the feedback, and we’re going to confirm what we’re hearing and support efforts to improve our communities,” Kristine Guerrero, director of public affairs, said. “It’s about educating our communities about the priorities and getting out the vote, whatever way you’re going to vote.”

And while both Temecula and Canyon Lake adopted the resolution unanimously, Riverside did not with Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes voting against.

“Criminalization is not the answer or the pathway to really being able to address a lot of the concerns that we are hearing and that we’re seeing across the state of California and even, of course, our own community here in Riverside,” she said. “When we criminalize and we continue to arrest people, what happens is they go through the system, and ultimately it makes it harder for them down the line to be able to receive employment.”

The challenges in gaining stable employment, she said, then snowball by making it harder for justice-impacted individuals to secure housing, making it more likely that they will end up back in the justice system.

Cervantes’ concerns echoed those of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has come out in opposition to the proposition.

“We’ve been here before, and if this proposition were to pass, it would set us back in terms of drastically increasing the number of people incarcerated in the state,” Luis Nolasco, senior community engagement and policy advocate at the ACLU of Southern California, said. “We’ve been able to really do an amazing job over the past 10 years reshaping what public safety can look like and should look like, and I think this is the wrong step.”

While the ACLU of Northern California, which has decried the initiative as a “prison spending scam,” has taken the lead on this ballot measure, Nolasco said the negative impacts would be felt statewide if voters were to approve Prop 36.

“It’s going to cost taxpayers more than $26 billion in prison spending,” he said. “It’s going to cut millions of dollars for treatment and victim services, and it’s going to return the state to the failed war on drugs and mass incarceration, so it’s not the way to go.”

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor for the California State Legislature, Prop 36 is estimated to increase criminal justice costs in the state, “likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year.” Locally, the LAO estimated that it would likely increase costs by tens of millions of dollars annually.

The LAO also noted that by rolling back parts of Prop 47, the amount of money the state is required to spend on certain related services would also decrease due to the increase in criminal justice costs.

“Proposition 47 created a process in which the estimated state savings from its punishment reductions must be spent on mental health and drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services,” the agency said. “These estimated savings totaled $95 million last year.”

Organizations that have publicly supported the measure include the Republican Party of California, unions representing district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriff’s departments and retailers in the state, corporations like Target, Walgreens and Walmart as well as the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, California Business Roundtable, California Correctional Peace Officers Association and California Grocers Association.

Those that have publicly opposed the measure include Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the ACLU of Northern California, Action for Safety and Justice, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Civil Rights Corps and Disability Rights California.