When California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36 last November, they endorsed a tough-love approach to drug and theft recidivism—raising penalties for repeat offenders while offering a treatment-or-felony alternative for those willing to get help. But the measure passed without a funding mechanism. That wasn’t an oversight—it was a calculated gamble.
The sponsors of Prop. 36 likely believed they could get the initiative through the ballot box without an identified funding source and then force the state’s hand by pointing to voter support. And now that the law is in effect but unfunded, the bet was that Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature would have no choice but to backfill the dollars.
But Newsom isn’t playing along.
From the outset, the governor has made clear that he sees Prop. 36 as bad policy—a throwback to the punitive logic of the war on drugs. He has repeatedly declined to allocate funds for implementation in both his January and May budget proposals, instead signaling that counties should pick up the slack. Even with a new budget proposal from legislative leaders this week offering $110 million in one-time money to jumpstart Prop. 36 implementation, Newsom remains noncommittal. And he holds the veto pen.
The $110 million proposal includes $50 million for behavioral health programs, $30 million to manage judicial workload (including collaborative courts), $15 million for pretrial services, and $15 million for public defenders. But many—including Republicans and probation officers—say it’s not enough.
State Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) called the figure “wholly inadequate.” Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) argued the proposal reflects partial progress, but not the full implementation that voters were promised. Republicans are pushing for $400 million, while Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg is calling for $250 million.
Chief probation officers, tasked with enforcing the law’s accountability provisions, were even more direct. “Without new dollars for supervision, drug offenders are less likely to complete treatment, and public safety is at risk,” said Steve Jackson, president of the Chief Probation Officers of California. “The one-time funds… are little more than window dressing.”
Jackson’s warning is rooted in real concern: without support for supervision, counties will struggle to enforce the treatment mandates, turning what was sold as an accountability measure into a toothless paper tiger. It’s also possible that defendants and district attorneys will eventually sue the state for failing to fund the very treatment programs that Prop. 36 requires.
But from Newsom’s point of view, this crisis was engineered.
The initiative’s authors sidestepped the legislative process and left out a funding mechanism—perhaps fearing that an explicit price tag would have tanked public support. Now, the bill has come due. But instead of quietly paying it, Newsom is essentially saying: If you’re going to bypass the deliberative process, don’t expect the state to pick up the check afterward.
It’s a high-stakes standoff. On one side are voters angry over visible public disorder and desperate for solutions that feel immediate. On the other is a governor who doesn’t want to be boxed into a policy framework he believes is flawed. And somewhere in the middle are the counties—public defenders, probation officers, judges—struggling to deliver services without the resources they need.
Newsom’s critics argue that by underfunding Prop. 36, he is effectively nullifying a law that voters passed by a wide margin. But he may argue that it’s the law’s drafters who played fast and loose with the rule of law—banking on the assumption that political pressure would override policy objections and budgetary reality.
In a state where budget deficits are deepening—thanks in part to revenue losses Newsom attributes to Trump-era trade policy—the decision to avoid a quarter-billion or more in new spending is not just ideological, it’s fiscal. But it’s also a reminder: when lawmakers or initiative sponsors ask voters to approve sweeping reforms without showing their work on funding, they risk building castles on sand.
The Legislature has until June 15 to approve the current budget proposal and until June 27 to reach a final agreement with the governor. Time is running out. But the message from Newsom seems clear: if you want to make law through the ballot, you better fund it too. Because this time, the bluff is being called.
“The sponsors of Prop. 36 likely believed they could get the initiative through the ballot box without an identified funding source and then force the state’s hand by pointing to voter support.”
How do you know that?
Because they sponsored a proposition that had no funding mechanism and have then pushed the legislature and governor to fund it.
Newsom would rather blow state funds on the Bullet Train to Nowhere.
So the people of California want Prop 36 but the governor doesn’t.
Why do Californians keep voting in democrats like this?
He only cares about himself and his political future, not his constituents.
But maybe Californians are catching on?
“However, on Tuesday, Newsom slipped yet again in job approval. A new UC Berkeley IGS poll found that 49% of Californians now disapprove of Newsom, with only 44% approving – a record low for the Governor. “
“The initiative’s authors sidestepped the legislative process and left out a funding mechanism”
Rather common with lawmakers.
“If you’re going to bypass the deliberative process, don’t expect the state to pick up the check afterward.”
I agree with that, except nothing should be placed on the ballot without full funding. Hypocrisy: look no further than the high-speed rail project, which was funded maybe 5-10% of total cost via initiative, and Newsom is scrambling every which way to fund that. So it really isn’t about fiscal responsibility, it’s about making excuses depending on what you want to fund.
“It’s a high-stakes standoff. On one side are voters angry over visible public disorder and desperate for solutions that feel immediate.”
Feel?
“if you want to make law through the ballot, you better fund it too.”
It shouldn’t even be legal to leave that part out. Actually, the voters shouldn’t have to vote on these things, the legislature should make the priorities — but we have initiatives due to legislative fail.
“budget deficits are deepening—thanks in part to revenue losses Newsom attributes to Trump-era trade policy—”
Because it is easier to blame the red man than take the blame for you and your party for bad budgets.
“Newsom’s critics argue that by underfunding Prop. 36, he is effectively nullifying a law that voters passed by a wide margin.”
“But from Newsom’s point of view, this crisis was engineered.”
Exactly the same way that the state engineered unachievable housing mandates, and lacked funding for Affordable housing which is required to achieve those mandates. With the only difference being that voters weren’t even involved with that.
Honestly, Newsom picks fights that he himself created. This type of thing is what ultimately leads voters to remove power from the state (e.g., Proposition 13).