California's 2014 law known as Prop 47 is often blamed for unleashing crime, homelessness, and the fentanyl crisis, and voters will have a chance to toughen up its under-$950 misdemeanor theft threshold with the new state measure Prop 36.

The 2014 California measure Prop 47 won a by 60% majority that year, reducing an array of theft and fraud crimes of under $950 to misdemeanors rather than felonies.  And it did its stated job, lowering the prison population by nearly 80,000 statewide, which saved the state about $800 million over those 10 years.  

But Prop 47 has been enormously controversial, being blamed for increases in property crime, and has spawned the false right-wing talking point that thefts of under $950 aren’t prosecuted period. Prop 47 has also been blamed for increasing homelessness and causing the fentanyl crisis, though there is little if any evidence of Prop 47's relation to these problems.

Regardless, after many failed attempts to overturn Prop 47, its opponents have their do-over in this November's election in Prop 36. According to the state election guide, Prop 36 “allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.” It also ramps up sentencing on property and drug crimes, and would mandate prison or treatment for drug offenses.

We have called Prop 36 a “Republican-led effort,” as its campaign chair and biggest backers are Republicans. (And its campaign is so flush with cash that it just donated $1 million to the California Republican Party, so we stand by our characterization.) But Prop 36 is also supported by SF Mayor London Breed, and a slew of other Democratic mayors statewide.

And interestingly, Kamala Harris won’t say how she’s voting on Prop 36, as in the Chronicle's words, “she hasn’t voted yet” and says she “hasn’t yet read through the entire ballot.”

But has property crime actually increased since Prop 47 was passed? The above property crime by year analysis from the nonpartisan and generally straight-shooting Public Policy Institute of California shows that the state’s property crime rate was actually lower than the rest of the country until spiking in about 2010. (That was four years before Prop 47.) California crime increased even more sharply in 2012 (two years before Prop 47), and hit its recent peak in 2015 when Prop 47 took effect, before declining, then spiking again during the pandemic.      

So property crime actually has generally gone down after an initial jump since Prop 47 passed, but is indeed trending back toward those peak 2015 levels. Though we should note to the “It’s worse than ever!” crowd that California property crime is vastly lower than it was 20 years ago.

Prop 36 hopes to steer more drug offenders into treatment, but as the Chronicle points out, it does not fund any additional treatment. The Chron noted in a report this week that "the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which assesses the costs of ballot measures, predicts it would steer tens of millions of dollars away from [treatment] programs.”

And CalMatters reported this week on the likelihood that Prop 36 would likely increase deportations, as suspects with felony charges are far more likely to face deportation than those with misdemeanor charges. Prop 36 supporters, though, would likely argue that deporting suspected drug and theft offenders is not a bad thing.

Governor Gavin Newsom opposes Prop 36. “It’s about mass incarceration, not mass treatment,” Newsom said at a September press conference covered by the Chronicle. “What an actual insult it is to say it’s about mass treatment when there’s not a dollar attached to it.”

And while Prop 36 is a largely Republican-backed measure, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has been stumping hard for it, getting op-eds like the one seen below in nearly every San Francisco publication not named SFist. It should be noted that Mahan also has a Prop 36 political action committee (PAC), a clever way for politicians to use those unlimited PAC contributions to promote ads that are basically about themselves.

“None of us wants to criminalize homelessness or go back to the era of mass incarceration of drug addicts,” Mahan wrote in SFGate. “That’s not what Prop 36 does. Instead, it charts a new path forward to the era of mass treatment, utilizing cost-effective accountability tools that can save lives.”

The pro-Prop 36 campaign is demolishing the opposition in terms of campaign contributions. The Yes on 36 forces have raised $15 million, while No on 36 has raised but $5.25 million. The above figures are nearly two months old.

Current campaign contribution numbers show that top Yes on 36 contributor Walmart has now donated $3.58 million, while Home Depot and Target have both contributed $1 million apiece. In-N-Out is still at that $500,000 mark, but 7-Eleven contributed another $250,000 this past Monday to bring their total to $550,000 contributed.

But here’s something funny to slurp on. We also see many multiple-thousand-dollar contributions from individual 7-Eleven franchisers like South Texas 7-Eleven Franchise Owners, South Florida Franchise Owner Association of 7-Eleven, Metro New Jersey Franchise Owners Association of 7-Eleven Franchises, and many other out-of-state 7-Eleven entities. Why do 7-Eleven owners as far as 3,000 miles away care about a California law that would not affect them? That curiosity is anybody’s guess.

Regardless, Prop 36 is polling incredibly well, and seems all but certain to pass. The poll cited above by Politico shows Prop 36 passing by an overwhelming 73%-25% margin.  

In other words, the day after Californa’s November 5 elections, they’ll probably be popping the champagne Slurpees at 7-Eleven stores in Florida, Texas, and New Jersey.

Related: State Lawmakers Once Again Going After Prop 47 Amidst Retail Theft Blowback [SFist]

Images: (Left) @SheriffJCooper via Twitter, (Right) @annielee415 via Twitter