Yolo County DA Voices Concerns on Proposition 36
Yolo County’s District Attorney, Jeff Reisig, recently conveyed a clear message to Californians about voting on Proposition 36, a ballot initiative poised to elevate penalties for drug and theft infractions. He urged those who believe that the current situation regarding homelessness and theft is acceptable not to vote for the measure. “If you’re content with California’s current status in addressing homelessness and theft, then don’t support Prop. 36,” Reisig stated.
Conversely, Sam Lewis, the executive director of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, directly criticized the measure during an online panel hosted by The Sacramento Bee. Addressing Reisig, Lewis stated, “The intent seems to be to incarcerate more Black and brown individuals. Just say it: ‘They don’t belong here, it’s better if they’re locked away.’” Such statements marked one of several intense exchanges during discussions on Proposition 36, which aims to address issues like homelessness, substance abuse, and theft – pressing concerns for many Californians.
Proposition 36: A Deeper Dive
If approved, Proposition 36 would permit individuals with prior convictions of shoplifting, burglary, and carjacking to face felony charges if they commit additional related offenses. The proposal also looks to heighten penalties for fentanyl possession under specific conditions. However, it doesn’t strictly advocate incarceration; individuals could avoid jail time by successfully enrolling and completing a treatment program.
This proposition seeks to reverse parts of Proposition 47, which, when implemented a decade ago, downgraded some drug and theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and allowed certain prisoners to have their sentences re-evaluated. Research by the Public Policy Institute of California highlighted that Proposition 47 reduced the state’s prison and jail populations, redirecting significant savings to prevention programs. Surprisingly, they credit recent theft spikes more to pandemic-related changes in the justice system than to Proposition 47 itself. Yet, many Californians perceive crime rates surpass statistical interpretations, feeling a strong demand for change.
“Voters desire change,” emphasized Brandon Castillo, a ballot measure strategist from BCFS Public Affairs, during the same panel. “Whether Proposition 36 is the apt solution remains for voters to decide.” Surveys reflect growing support for Proposition 36. Dan Schnur, a political science professor across various Californian institutions, perceives a shift in public sentiment: “We’re witnessing a reevaluation of criminal justice norms by Californians, seeking stricter measures.”
Proposition 6: A Discussion on Labor and Incarceration
Simultaneously, Proposition 6 has sparked debates. This modifications would amend California’s constitution, eliminating the clause allowing involuntary servitude as a punishment. Should this pass, incarcerated individuals could refuse work without facing punitive measures from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. However, those who choose to work could still enjoy reduced sentences.
During the panel, Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, advocated for the measure: “It removes the remnants of slavery from our constitution, prioritizing rehabilitation over forced labor.” Wilson, the author of Proposition 6, required legislative approval before introducing it to the ballot. Despite having no formal opposition, recent polls indicate its struggle for majority approval, probably due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the prison system, as suggested by Lewis, reflecting on his incarceration experience. While imprisoned, Lewis faced a dilemma of choosing between pursuing education or adhering to work obligations.
Additional Propositions: Rent Control and Healthcare
Besides Propositions 36 and 6, the panel focused on two other measures igniting financial clashes on this ballot. Proposition 33 seeks to empower local governments to implement or expand rent control measures within their jurisdictions. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a steadfast supporter, has invested over $37 million towards the campaign. However, voters have twice previously rejected such measures despite prior attempts.
On the other side, the California Apartment Association opposes Proposition 33, investing more than $65 million to lobby against its approval. Simultaneously, they advocate for Proposition 34, mandating 98% of revenues received from a federal prescription drug program by healthcare providers to be allocated directly to patient care. This proposition has received heavy backing, with over $35 million contributed in its favor.
Castillo described Proposition 34 as a strategic countermeasure against the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s interests. He noted that while it threatens the foundation’s financial sources, it also aims to distract it during campaign efforts.