California, CA — In a sharp political clash, California Democrats recently shut down a proposal put forward by Republican legislators to allocate $400 million in funding for treatment under Proposition 36. The proposal, which had wide bipartisan support, sought to provide crucial financial support for the treatment-mandated felonies created by the law passed by voters in 2024.
Proposition 36, which was approved by over two-thirds of California voters last year, targets serial theft and drug crimes by prosecuting them as felonies while simultaneously offering court-ordered treatment for individuals with mental health or substance abuse issues. The goal of the law is to provide a rehabilitative alternative to incarceration, addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.
Despite this broad public support, Republican lawmakers have expressed frustration over the lack of funding in Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2025-2026 budget proposal. The governor’s budget does not include provisions for Prop. 36, prompting Republican leaders to accuse him of failing to live up to his commitments.
“Gov. Newsom’s rhetoric has never translated into real actions,” said Senator Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach. “The hypocrisy is laughable. I urge him and legislative Democrats to fund Prop. 36, which was passed by nearly 70% of voters in all 58 counties in California.”
The proposal to provide $400 million for Prop. 36 treatment services was met with resistance from Democratic lawmakers, who largely voted against it. Their decision to block the funding has prompted criticism from Republicans, who argue that the governor’s actions contradict his public statements. Newsom had recently issued a letter recognizing National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, emphasizing the state’s commitment to supporting and empowering victims of crime. However, critics noted the irony of his failure to include necessary funding for Prop. 36 in his budget, given its clear mandate from voters.
“Too many victims walk away from the legal system feeling unheard and unsupported,” Newsom wrote in his letter. “California is committed to supporting and empowering victims of crime.”
Republican critics were quick to point out the disconnect between Newsom’s words and actions, suggesting that the governor was not adequately supporting the law that voters had overwhelmingly endorsed.
In response to the criticism, Newsom’s office pointed to existing state-funded programs such as Medi-Cal, the Behavioral Health Services Act, and other initiatives, which provide treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also weighed in, acknowledging that while the governor’s budget may underfund certain aspects of the criminal justice system, these programs are equipped to handle the expected increase in cases related to Prop. 36.
However, the debate remains contentious, with concerns that without adequate funding for Prop. 36, the state may face challenges in managing the growing number of cases. Critics warn that failure to properly fund the law could result in adverse consequences for both the individuals affected by the law and the public at large.
As the debate over funding continues, it remains unclear whether lawmakers will be able to reconcile their differences and provide the necessary resources to support the goals of Proposition 36. The outcome of these discussions will have significant implications for the future of California’s criminal justice system, as well as for efforts to address mental health and substance abuse issues in the state.