On June 9th, Republican members of the California State Assembly held a press conference urging funding for Proposition 36, which was passed in November 2024. The new law enhances penalties for drug-related offenses, theft, and other crimes, garnering support from all 58 counties in California and nearly 70% of the voters.
June 15th each year marks the deadline for the State Assembly to approve the governor’s budget proposal. James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the State Assembly, stated, “We are requesting a full allocation of $400 million for Proposition 36, to be completed this week. We will certainly engage with our Democratic colleagues and encourage everyone to put pressure on Governor Newsom and Democratic lawmakers.”
In May, Governor Newsom introduced a revised budget proposal for the 2025-26 fiscal year, totaling $321.9 billion, facing a projected deficit of nearly $12 billion. On the 9th, leaders of both houses of the State Assembly announced an agreement, adjusting some funding items, but allocating very little towards Proposition 36. California spent approximately $9.5 billion last year on comprehensive health insurance for illegal immigrants of all age groups.
Proposition 36 serves as a corrective measure to Proposition 47, allowing for felony charges to be brought against individuals in possession of and trafficking a large quantity of drugs, including fentanyl, and for repeat crimes of theft under $950. It also mandates drug users to undergo rehabilitation. However, without funding for mental health and substance abuse programs, the law cannot be effectively implemented, and the promises of reform will remain unfulfilled.
Following the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, which reduced penalties for criminals, drug-related crimes, theft, and robbery cases skyrocketed, making public safety a top concern for Californians.
“We are allowing crime to run rampant in California. Just last weekend, people in Los Angeles witnessed this again. Throwing Molotov cocktails and bricks at law enforcement vehicles, intimidating officers – this is unacceptable and must be stopped,” Gallagher remarked. “These are not peaceful protests; this lawlessness must cease. This is the message of Proposition 36, and it needs to continue resonating.”
Two lawmakers from Orange County attended the press conference. State Senator Tony Strickland of the 36th District stated, “The core responsibility of the government is public safety, which the governor should prioritize in funding… instead of investing in a train (referencing the California High-Speed Rail) whose route and completion are uncertain, and has already received billions, yet is unwilling to allocate funds to ensure the safety of Californians.” He called on his Democratic colleagues to lend their support.
Assemblywoman Diane Dixon of the 72nd District mentioned, “Data shows that recidivism rates for those who have undergone drug treatment are low,” emphasizing the need for funding to support vital rehabilitation programs across the state. Since the governor introduced the budget proposal in January, discussions have been ongoing. “Proposition 36 includes provisions on warning labels for fentanyl drugs, which also require inclusion and financial support… the governor must do the right thing for us to make California safe again.”
Deputy Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and 6th District Senator Roger Niello commented that the state budget is not as complicated as imagined, simply representing a list of priorities for state government. “The governor’s disregard for the will of the voters or the acknowledgement of their priorities is disheartening,” he said upon seeing the Senate budget agreement, proposing a one-time allocation of $100 million for Proposition 36. “Firstly, this is wholly insufficient; secondly, the proposal is constrained by Governor Newsom’s line-item veto power.”
Niello added, “Given the governor’s staunch opposition to funding Proposition 36, if he vetoes it, I wouldn’t be surprised, but I must warn him not only to refrain from doing so but also to honor the will of the voters and allocate funds accordingly.”
Alexa Hansen, head of the Victim Advocate Angels organization, which has long been advocating for crime victims’ rights, emphasized the significance of Proposition 36. Having witnessed community events, sat with victims in courtrooms, and participated in drug crime trials, she has also lost loved ones to drug traffickers. Hansen stated, “The governor is reluctant to overcrowd prisons; it’s about money. If he redirects the savings from implementing Proposition 47 into Proposition 36, street crimes will decrease, and victims will diminish.”
Jeff Reising, a local prosecutor who contributed to drafting Proposition 36 provisions, on behalf of all state and local prosecutors in California, noted that thousands of individuals committing “mandatory treatment felony” offenses have been arrested by law enforcement statewide since the passage of Proposition 36. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough funding to provide them with comprehensive treatment.
“Many of them are seriously ill; in fact, most are homeless, awaiting treatment in jails,” Reising remarked. For frontline workers, “this is not a red or blue party issue; it’s about humanity and compassion. We urge the governor to respect the will of the people and do something compassionate.”
Peter Durfee, the County Sheriff and Police Officer of Butte County, expressed, “Over the past 18 years, as a frontline law enforcement officer, I have witnessed the process of decriminalization post-Proposition 47, which is also why Proposition 36 could secure such a significant victory.” However, he worries that county and city governments will struggle due to insufficient funding, stating, “We need to allocate funding for Proposition 36.”