California’s current crime conundrum can be told as a story with (at least) three parts. Voters passed 2014’s Proposition 47, 2016’s Proposition 57, and finally 2024’s Proposition 36.

In the first two, voters went along with progressive policies — sold using feel-good language — that created more homelessness, crime, and human misery. In the third, though, voters overwhelmingly rejected the failures caused by these earlier policies.

But now, California Governor Gavin Newsom and his state-level legislative allies are trying to undermine voters calling for more criminal accountability — including time in prison for those who break the law — by refusing to adequately fund Prop. 36’s proposals.

For those unfamiliar, Prop. 47 downgraded most types of theft under $950 from felonies to misdemeanors and made it impossible to charge most simple possession cases as felonies rather than misdemeanors.

Combined with the fact that California’s rogue prosecutors in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland — just to name a few — refused to prosecute most misdemeanor offenses, lawlessness flourished.

Amid this front-end problem, California voters approved Prop. 57 in 2016. Voters were told this proposal was designed to allow “nonviolent” offenders who had been rehabilitated to be released from prison early.

Sounds good. Right?

Here’s the problem: The California legislature had previously redefined “nonviolent” offenses to include crimes like assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, intimidating a witness, resisting arrest that causes harm to a police officer, elder or child abuse, arson with injury, human trafficking, certain types of manslaughter, rape of an unconscious person (though this has since changed), sex trafficking, and trafficking of children.

Most people would agree that those are not “nonviolent” crimes. And yet, because the California legislature had declared it so, those who committed these heinous offenses began to be released under Prop. 57’s regime.

Sensing that something wasn’t quite right, and that these soft-on-crime policies were hurting their communities rather than helping them, Californians took action.

Not only did they vote out of office the rogue district attorneys in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland, but they also passed — with almost 70% of the vote — Prop. 36, which rolled back many of Prop. 47’s soft-on-crime policies.

Under Prop. 36, repeat shoplifters can now be charged with a felony punishable by up to three years in state prison. Those convicted of certain drug-dealing offenses must serve their sentences in state prison rather than county jail. (This matters because in 2011, the California legislature passed AB 109, which allows those who commit many types of crimes to serve their sentences in a county jail instead of a state prison. With jail overcrowding posing a real issue, many served far less time than they were supposed to.)

Those accused of certain drug possession offenses or who have multiple past convictions for drug crimes can be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” — meaning that if a person completes a drug rehab program, his or her charges will be dismissed. If not, that person can face up to three years in state prison. Finally, Prop. 36 requires courts to warn those who come before them that if they provide illegal drugs to someone, they could be charged with murder if that person overdoses and dies as a result.

Governor Gavin Newsom opposed Prop. 36 and vigorously campaigned against it. Now that California voters have rejected his soft-on-crime policies, he’s pitching a temper tantrum and is actively opposing funding many of Prop. 36’s proposals.

In May 2025, Newsom said, “There were a lot of supervisors in the counties that promoted it … So, this is their opportunity to step up. Fund it!”

One state senator reacted, saying, “He is being absolutely recalcitrant because the voters didn’t vote the way he wanted them to and the way he told them to . . . He’s taking his football and going home.”

After dragging his feet for the first half of 2025, Newsom finally offered some funding for Prop. 36’s proposals. But critics argue that this money was already allocated and not enough to carry out the reforms in Prop. 36.

Newsom’s recalcitrance is unfortunate. Not only is he subverting the will of the voters, he’s also pushing back against commonsense policies designed to control California’s crime problem.

Californians know there needs to be accountability when someone breaks the law. They voted for it. And now Newsom and the California legislature need to fund it.

* * *

Zack Smith is a Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!

Menu

California’s Crime Crisis: Voters Took Action, Newsom Took His Football And Went Home

A Week Without Murder: Trump’s Crackdown Restores Safety To Washington, D.C.

Biden’s Justice Department Is Suing Tennessee For Protecting Its Citizens From HIV-Positive Prostitutes