Is There a Funding Requirement for Prop. 36?

It is certainly understandable that the proponents of Proposition 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, expect the Governor and Legislature to fund the costs of its implementation.

Prop. 36 was approved by California voters in November 2024 and took effect on December 18, 2024. This measure partially reverses Proposition 47 (2014) by allowing felony charges for certain drug and theft crimes and increasing penalties for repeat offenders.

While the proponents of Prop. 36 have been critical about the level of funding received, a legal question has been raised whether the People’s enactment of Prop. 36 requires funding?

In my mind, the courts of this state can either decide either (1) there is no funding attached and therefore there is not a requirement on the legislative and executive branches to fund it (as opposed to measures like Prop. 98 which explicitly sets forth funding guarantees) or (2) they can imply the voters intended a funding requirement and impose such a requirement.

From my perspective, the answer to this question is a matter of statutory construction and, rather than walk through such a legal analysis, I think the correct answer is the courts would not impose a funding requirement. Why?

While the proponents make the claim that denied or inadequate funding would thwart the will of voters, California courts have generally viewed the Legislature as having the authority to appropriate state funds through the annual budget process, which obviously also involves the Governor. Because that authority rests with the legislative and executive branches of state government, I do not envision the courts to read into the language of Prop. 36 a funding requirement.

As a practical matter, how would the courts address it? Would that requirement be placed upon the state government, or local governments? And how would the courts determine what the appropriate level of funding should be?

If a ballot measure enacted by the People would require spending in order to implement its provisions, then the ballot measure should specify a revenue source or appropriate a specified amount of funding for that purpose. It should not rely upon the courts to infer or imply a funding requirement. As such, the funding for Prop. 36 will likely remain in the hands of the goodwill of the Legislature and Governor.