Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig has a message for Californians wondering how to vote on Proposition 36, a state ballot measure that will increase penalties for drug and theft crimes.
“If you think the things in California are going great, and that all of the homelessness and all of the stealing that we’re seeing is just fine,” he said. “Don’t vote for Prop. 36.”
Sam Lewis, executive director of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, was equally blunt while advocating for voters to reject the measure, during a virtual panel discussion hosted Wednesday by The Sacramento Bee.
“What my esteemed colleague wants to do is to lock Black and brown people up,” he said, addressing Reisig. “Just say it: ‘There’s not a place for you here, we would love to see you locked back up.”
That was one of several lively exchanges between both Lewis and Reisig on the proposition, which has a stated goal of addressing homelessness, substance abuse and theft — key issues at the top of mind for many Californians.
If passed, the ballot measure will allow people with past convictions for shoplifting, burglary and carjacking to be charged with a felony if they are accused of committing more theft-related crimes. It would also increase punishment for people who possess fentanyl in certain situations. And it will allow people to avoid time in prison or jail if they successfully complete a treatment program.
The measure would roll back elements of Proposition 47, which reduced some theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and allowed certain inmates to have their sentences changed when it passed a decade ago.
Researchers from the Public Policy Institute of California have found Prop. 47 not only lowered the state’s prison and jail populations but lead to many millions of dollars in savings going to programs meant to prevent people from being locked up in the future. They attribute recent rises in theft more to pandemic responses in the criminal justice system than the measure itself.
But there’s a perception about crime that goes beyond statistics: Many Californians are frustrated.
“The voters want change,” Brandon Castillo, a ballot measure strategist with BCFS Public Affairs, said during Wednesday’s discussion. “And whether or not this is the right change, that’s for the voters to decide.”
The measure has received strong support in recent polls.
Dan Schnur, a political science professor at several California universities, said he sees a shift in public opinion.
“What we’re seeing now is Californians re-think this approach to criminal justice and begin looking for ways to come down tougher.”
Jail and prison labor
The topic of crime and punishment also came up in the discussion around Proposition 6, which would amend the state’s constitution to prevent jails and prisons from forcing inmates to work.
Currently the constitution reads: “Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.” If the measure passes, the last four words would be removed, meaning that incarcerated people would be able to refuse to work and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would not be able to punish them for doing so. Inmates who decide to work would still be eligible to receive shorter sentences.
“It removes the vestiges of slavery from our constitution,” said Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, a Suisun City Democrat, during the panel. And: “it prioritizes rehabilitation over everything else. Right now work is prioritized over rehabilitation.”
Wilson authored the measure, which had to be approved by the Legislature before it was placed on the ballot.
No formal argument was submitted against Prop. 6 in the state’s official voter information guide, but recent polling showed that it has struggled to gain majority support.
“I think it’s because the public is not fully aware of how the system functions,” said Lewis, of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, who was previously incarcerated. At one point during his time in prison, Lewis said, he had to choose between taking an exam to help achieve a college degree, or work. He took the test and was given a write-up, though it was later dismissed.
“Don’t we want those people to come home, like me, better than they went in?” he asked.
Battle on the ballot
Panelists also discussed two other propositions that have led to an expensive fight on the ballot.
Proposition 33 would allow cities and counties to impose or expand rent control ordinances in their communities. It is backed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has contributed more than $37 million in support of the measure. It’s not the first time the organization has backed an effort to allow local governments to expand rent control — the measure has been put on the ballot, and rejected by voters, twice before.
The California Apartment Association has spent more than $65 million to oppose Prop. 33.
At the same time, the association is backing Proposition 34, which would require health care providers receiving money from a federal prescription drug program to use 98% of revenue on direct patient care. The apartment association has contributed more than $35 million in support of the measure.
Prop. 34 is a not-so-veiled attempt to strike back at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said Castillo, the veteran strategist. It threatens the financial resources of the organization, he added, while also attempting to distract the foundation during the campaign.
