Executive Summary
Summary
Proposition 36 promised California voters a balanced approach—enhanced penalties paired with mandated treatment programs. In practice, it delivered only the penalties. The treatment infrastructure was never funded, leaving counties to improvise with nonexistent resources. New polling from UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center shows voters see the gap clearly and are not satisfied with what they received.
Why This Matters
Proposition 36 passed with 68% support in November 2024, carrying all 58 counties. Less than a year later, a majority of voters disapprove of how it is being implemented. Understanding voter sentiment is critical for legislators, advocates, and local officials navigating next steps—because the electorate’s values have not changed, even as their trust in this law has collapsed.
What You Need to Know
- The Treatment Promise Is Unfunded: Prop 36 mandated treatment programs but provided zero dedicated funding. Only 1% of LA County residential treatment facilities had open beds. Twenty-two counties have no residential treatment facilities at all, and ten lack adult drug courts entirely.
- Voters Disapprove: 53% of California voters disapprove of implementing Prop 36 without treatment funding—including 38% of Republicans and 45% of Trump approvers. Only 34% approve.
- Treatment Is the Priority: 59% of voters want drug treatment and rehabilitation funded to support Prop 36’s goals. Only 22% prioritize jails and prisons. This preference holds across party lines.
- Racial Disparities Are Stark: In Alameda County, 90% of petty theft charges under Prop 36 were filed against Black defendants in a county that is 10% Black. Statewide, 84% of those charged are people of color.
- No Consensus on a Fix: A plurality (25%) favors outright repeal, 22% would fully fund treatment, and 21% would leave it to counties. The coalition agrees on values but fractures on strategy.
Conclusion
Voters did not abandon their support for treatment—they lost faith in a law that promised it without providing the means to deliver. The broad, bipartisan treatment coalition remains intact and is waiting for a credible, fundable vehicle to match its values. The argument for treatment has been won; what remains is to build a path forward worthy of voters’ trust.