California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing serious backlash for his refusal to fully fund Proposition 36, a recently passed law aimed at increasing penalties for theft and drug trafficking. Proposition 36 won overwhelming support from California voters in November 2024, securing 71% approval against only 21% opposing it. This new law comes as a direct response to the alarming increase in smash-and-grab robberies that have plagued brick-and-mortar retailers across the state.
The governor has a history of opposing harsher penalties, claiming they are “too harsh.” By rejecting the funding necessary for Proposition 36, Newsom is leaving communities vulnerable to crime. He has allocated only $100 million to implement the law, significantly less than the $400 million needed, which undermines its potential effectiveness.
The consequences of his decision are becoming increasingly apparent. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman criticized Newsom emphatically, stating, “We will call [Newsom]. We will send him social media. We will DM him. I’ll say it right to the camera, Governor Newsom if you’re watching, get us this funding. If you want to save lives, get us this funding.” Hochman points out that without adequate funding, the implementation of Proposition 36 will be hampered, leading to slower processing times for cases and an inability for jails to act effectively as treatment centers for those struggling with addiction.
The push for tougher consequences comes after years of California’s soft-on-crime policies that began with the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014. This earlier measure reclassified many nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, reducing penalties significantly. California voters now seem to be reversing course, demanding stronger protections for their communities, especially in light of the palpable fear generated by a spate of high-profile criminal events.
Proposition 36 sets the stage for stiffer penalties for acts like drug possession and the theft of items valued at less than $950. These changes aim to directly counter the permissive environment that some feel emerged from the earlier legislation. Newsom’s reluctance to fund this law suggests a disconnect between him and the voters who have clearly expressed a desire for tougher crime measures.
Newsom’s concerns about the harshness of the penalties may not resonate with the electorate. The statistics and sentiments reflect a growing frustration among residents who have witnessed firsthand the impact of rising crime rates. With many retailers forced to close their doors permanently, communities feel the economic and social fallout of these organized thefts and drug-related offenses.
As the governor faces scrutiny from both the public and law enforcement leaders, it is evident that his administration’s approach requires reconsideration. The sense among the populace is one of urgency. They want action that corresponds to their demands for safety and accountability, not further delays or watered-down measures. The dialogue surrounding Proposition 36 and its funding is about much more than just numbers; it speaks to the everyday reality for Californians seeking a return to stability in their neighborhoods.
"*" indicates required fields
