Two years after California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, promising tougher consequences for drug and theft crimes alongside a path to treatment, questions are mounting over whether the treatment side of that bargain is actually working.
A new investigation from CalMatters examines how the law is playing out in courtrooms and jails across the state, and finds that even supporters of the measure acknowledge significant gaps in the system meant to help people struggling with addiction.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who backed the proposition, said the state has yet to deliver on its end of the deal. “People are waiting and dying on the streets for lack of a proper treatment system,” Mahan said. “The fundamental problem remains, which is that the state has refused to take ownership of building a robust treatment system that is going to serve the needs of people.”
Under Proposition 36, certain drug possession and theft offenses that were previously misdemeanors can now be charged as a “treatment-mandated felony.” Defendants facing those charges are given a choice: enter treatment or face prison time. But the law leaves it up to individual counties to decide how long that treatment period should last, and the resulting patchwork varies wildly. In Ventura County, treatment programs run about three months. In San Luis Obispo County, participants may be required to stay in the system for up to two years before their charges are dismissed.
That inconsistency can have real consequences for people trying to rebuild their lives. Aaron Kasper, who completed a three-month residential treatment program in Sonoma County after being accused of possessing fentanyl, expected his case to be resolved once he finished. Instead, he spent the rest of a court-mandated year undergoing random drug tests, attending court hearings, outpatient sessions and self-help meetings.
Because Kasper had entered a plea deal, he knew a felony on his record would make finding a job difficult. He lived off his savings and held off on his job search until just two weeks before his yearlong obligation ended.
“I tried to make the best of a horrible situation,” Kasper said.
The findings raise fresh questions about whether California’s approach to addressing addiction through the criminal justice system is delivering the outcomes voters were promised, or simply shifting the burden onto defendants navigating an inconsistent and, at times, unforgiving process.
CalMatters is partnering with the University of California, Riverside’s School of Public Policy for a public conversation on Sept. 24 in Riverside about the news organization’s investigation into the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s seizure of mail ballots and what it could mean for future elections. Details and registration are available through CalMatters’ events page.
In other statewide news, a once-reliably conservative congressional district in Northern California has become one of the most closely watched U.S. House races in the country, with healthcare policy taking center stage. Dr. Richard Pan, a pediatrician and former state senator known for his advocacy of childhood vaccines, is challenging Rep. Kevin Kiley, a two-term incumbent who left the Republican Party to run as an independent. Pan supports universal health coverage and argues that changes to Medicaid under the Trump administration are driving up costs for Californians. Kiley opposes vaccine mandates and single-payer healthcare, placing blame instead on state lawmakers in Sacramento for the high cost of living.
The district, which covers portions of Yolo, Sacramento and Placer counties, has drawn heightened attention after redistricting split Placer County into three left-leaning districts. Julann Brown, chair of the Placer County Democratic Party, said the change has reenergized local political engagement. “Now we have three winnable Democratic seats,” she said. “We’ve become relevant in a way that we didn’t expect.”
Meanwhile, legislation banning child marriage in California is now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk after nearly ten years of failed attempts to pass similar measures. Under current law, anyone under 18 can marry with parental and judicial consent, and roughly 9,000 minors are married in California each year, the vast majority of them girls marrying adult men. Critics argue the practice effectively legalizes relationships that would otherwise be considered statutory rape. Previous bills stalled amid opposition from groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which have said marriage can provide minors with legal protections, including paths to emancipation. Supporters of this year’s bill believe political shifts, including federal funding cuts targeting organizations like Planned Parenthood, may reduce resistance to the measure.
In immigration news, a federal judge has ruled that immigration enforcement agents likely violated the Constitution by making warrantless arrests without first assessing whether individuals posed a flight risk. The decision marks a victory for immigration advocates suing to halt the practice.
In commentary, CalMatters columnist Dan Walters criticizes state leaders for withholding billions in education funding while continuing to spend heavily on pet projects and travel. Contributor Jim Newton argues that Los Angeles mayoral candidates are too focused on whether to fire the police chief, rather than examining how to properly evaluate the department’s performance. And author Kevin Waite reflects on the legacy of Biddy Mason, the formerly enslaved woman who built a real estate empire and helped shape Los Angeles into the city it is today.
Original source: CalMatters
