Some voters still haven’t forgiven Gavin Newsom for his opposition to Proposition 36, which passed by a landslide (68.4%) in the 2024 California general election. It was a “tougher-on-crime” initiative that increased penalties for drug and retail theft crimes and elevated some misdemeanors to felonies.
Prop 36’s victory certainly was the result of the crime and murder spree that had hit California in the years 2019-2023. People were sick and tired of crime and of criminals who weren’t punished. I myself was a strong proponent of 36. The measure, now in effect, appears to have had teeth: the Public Policy Institute of California reported in April that “A recent survey by California’s Judicial Council of the courts—conducted in the second half of February [2025] and covering the vast majority of counties—indicates that about 1,500 theft and 1,900 drug cases have been filed by prosecutors applying the new law’s felony charges.” Meanwhile, another study, conducted by the California District Attorneys Association, found that “estimates of Prop 36-related felony filings in the first 90 days of implementation [totaled] 3,500 theft and 4,500 drug cases.” While we don’t know the eventual legal outcomes (i.e. sentencing) of all these cases, it seems safe to say that Prop 36 resulted in a lot of bad guys taken off the streets.
I asked Gov. Newsom whether he now regrets having opposed Prop 36. His answer was an emphatic “No.” He’s well aware that his opposition has cost him a price politically, which, he says, he knew would happen. However, his consideration of what he views as the negative implications of 36 for California compelled him to oppose it. Below are his reasons, which I have rephrased since he did not give me permission to quote him directly.
Prop 36 increases the likelihood that CA will have more drug users locked up in prisons for longer periods of time. While this apparently is what voters wanted, from a sitting Governor’s point of view the impact on the budget is daunting. Each prisoner costs the state $130,000 a year. At the same time, the state must now slow down its rate of prison closures (some of which had been court-ordered), significantly increasing prison and court costs, which is a further drain on the state’s dwindling resources (California’s budget deficit is estimated at $12 billion). This in turn takes money away from drug-treatment programs and crime victims’ services, as well as other vital programs, including, most notably, Medi-Cal.
Prop 36, Newsom concedes, was great politics. It may be successful in terms of more arrests and prosecutions, but in Newsom’s view, these outcomes could have been achieved by DAs without Prop 36. The replacements of Pamela Price with Ursula Jones Dickson in Alameda County, and of Chesa Boudin by Brooke Jenkins in San Francisco, for example, show how electing moderates instead of radicals can have a positive impact on crime; both DAs are indicting more criminals than their progressive predecessors.
Newsom further argues, not unreasonably, that Prop 36 represents a throwback to the old War on Drugs, which even some conservatives and libertarians think was an abject failure. Prop 36 may satisfy the public’s mood for vengeance (which is entirely understandable), but it doesn’t assign one penny in funding to its actual implementation.
Finally, Newsom believes that the resources he has assigned to fighting crime (including sending the California Highway Patrol to Oakland, grants to the DA/Sheriff/Police, 500 surveillance cameras given to Oakland, etc.) have had a much bigger impact on crime than Prop 36 ever could—a claim that rings true given the falling crime rate. According to OPD, the overall crime rate in Oakland between first-quarter 2025 compared to 2024—both pre-Prop 36--was down 37%; violent crime down 33%, and burglary down 36%, etc.
As someone who voted for Prop 36, and privately argued with Newsom about it, I find his reasoning to be worthy of consideration, instead of being dismissed, as some have done, simply because they dislike Gavin Newsom. It’s one thing to react emotionally. We all do, to some extent. But facts are facts; dislike of Newsom is no substitute for a reasoned analysis of what Prop 36 actually does and doesn’t do. The topic is, at least, worthy of informed conversation.
Steve Heimoff