No Funding for Prop. 36 in Gov. Newsom’s May Budget Revise

California Governor Gavin Newsom made very clear Wednesday his budget priorities by not funding voter-passed Proposition 36, and continuing to allow illegal immigrants receive taxpayer funded Medi-Cal.

Our interview Tuesday with Senator Tony Strickland addressed his efforts and request that Governor Gavin Newsom respect the will of the voters and include $400 million in the May Budget Revise to implement Proposition 36 and fund mental health and drug treatment programs.

Following that interview, we spoke with Greg Totten, the Chief Executive Officer of the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) and asked, “What is required legally when a proposition/ballot initiative is passed by voters requiring funding for implementation?”

“What can be done legally if Governor Gavin Newsom refuses to fund Proposition 36, the anti-crime initiative passed last November by nearly 70% in all 58 counties?”

California voters who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36 also rightfully expected it to be implemented. Proposition 36 is known as “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.” It was passed by California voters at the November 5, 2024 election.

Gov. Newsom said in his May Budget Revise press conference Wednesday that Proposition 36 is an unfunded mandate.

However, it was a crushing mandate with passage by 70% of the voters, and every county in the state. Gov. Newsom is playing with fire.

If funded, Prop. 36 will provide drug and mental health treatment for people who are addicted to hard drugs; give judges more sentencing options – including state prison – to use their discretion when sentencing drug dealers convicted of trafficking hard drugs in large quantities or who are armed with a firearm while engaging in drug trafficking; warn convicted hard drug dealers that they can be charged with murder if they continue to traffic in hard drugs and someone dies as a result; reinstate the great bodily injury enhancement (GBI) for hard drug dealers whose trafficking kills or seriously injures someone; and effectively overturned the worst aspects of Proposition 47, passed in 2014.

Mr. Totten told the Globe that there was no language in Prop. 36 to mandate funding, and there is no state law that he is aware of requiring the governor and Legislature to fund a ballot initiative passed by voters.

“It is shocking and disappointing that the Governor did not fund it in the Budget Revise,” CDAA CEO Totten told the Globe. He said passage of Prop. 36 was a monumental mandate, and that additional polling overwhelmingly continues to support treatment as an option to prison for convicted drug users.

“Under Proposition 47, people were cycled in and out of the system. We supported Gov. Newsom’s ‘Care Court‘ but there is only so much you can do with a conservatorship.”

Under Care Court, the eligibility criteria is quite limited, primarily to people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Addiction by itself does not qualify. Totten said you must prove a “grave disability” to a jury, and when the meds kick in, the patient is no longer supported by the court.

And he said that the Care Court system can’t assume that many cases. “We can help them turn their lives around,” with Prop. 36 Totten said.

“80% of chronically homeless people suffer from serious substance abuse issues,” he said. And sadly, most policies and programs don’t build in accountability or responsibility the way treatment under Prop. 36 would.

Gov. Newsom’s state-funded shelters, tiny homes, renovated apartments and hotel rooms were “low-barrier,” meaning minimum expectations or requirements are placed on the people who live there. They are allowed to stay while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and even to continue to engage in street activity or substance abuse. There is no requirement that they work toward sobriety or recovery.

A high-barrier shelter places requirements on the people accepted. They are required to abstain from alcohol and drugs, meet with a case manager, and contribute to necessary chores. In some shelter programs, they are also expected to attend chapel and work toward resolution of the issues that landed them on the streets, like at the Union Gospel Mission programs.

Prop. 36 is just not a priority for Governor Newsom.

Senator Strickland made that clear in a list compiled of California’s budgetary waste – programs funded instead of Prop. 36:

• $7 billion for the High Speed Rail (source: KCRA)
• $9.5 billion for undocumented immigrant healthcare (source: Los Angeles Times)
• $240 million for Governor Newsom’s San Quentin Transformation (source: San Francisco Chronicle)
• $5 million in one-time General Fund to launch a Belonging Campaign by January 2026. (Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office)
• $50 million for Governor Newsom’s Slush Fund for Attorney General Bonta to ‘Trump-proof’ California (source: Politico)
• $57 million for Governor Newsom’s Outreach Support Funds Proposal for community engagement and awareness campaigns (Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office)

“Californians are sensitive to government waste, and a budget is a blueprint of priorities,” Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) said. “Here again, Newsom is out of step with Californians by not fully funding Prop. 36, which passed by nearly 70% and in all 58 counties, yet he insists on throwing good money after bad to the high-speed rail, which needs more than just a Newsom’s lifeline.”