Jump to content

2024 California Proposition 36

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposition 36
November 5, 2024 (2024-11-05)
Allow Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Theft and Drug Crimes.
People convicted of certain drug or theft crimes could receive increased punishment, such as longer prison sentences. In certain cases, people who possess illegal drugs would be required to complete treatment or serve up to three years in prison.
Results
Choice
 Votes %
Yes 6,720,556 70.36%
No 2,830,518 29.64%
Valid votes 9,551,074 100.00%
Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00%
Total votes 9,551,074 100.00%
Yes
  80-90%
  70-80%
  60-70%
  50-60%

Source: California Secretary of State[1]
Elections in California
Federal government
U.S. President
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
State government
Executive
Governor
Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Secretary of state
Treasurer
Controller
Insurance commissioner
Superintendent
Board of equalization
Legislature
Senate
Assembly
Judiciary
Court of appeals
Elections by year
State propositions
1910–1919
1960–1969
1970–1979
1980–1989
1990–1999
2000–2009
2010–2019
2020–2029
Full list
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County
Board of supervisors
Ballot measures
  • 1980
  • 2008
  • 2012
  • 2016
Elections
Los Angeles
Mayor
City attorney
Ballot measures
  • 1986
  • 2017
Elections
Long Beach
Mayor
Orange County
Orange County
Board of supervisors
District attorney
Anaheim
Mayor
Irvine
Mayor
Costa Mesa
Municipal
Sacramento
Mayor
San Diego County
San Diego County
Board of supervisors
San Diego
Mayor
City attorney
City council
San Francisco
Mayor
District attorney
Board of supervisors
Board of education
Ballot measures
  • 2024
Elections
San Jose
Mayor
Other localities
Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

Riverside

Mayoral elections:

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

Proposition 36, titled Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes, was an initiated California ballot proposition and legislative statute that was approved in the 2024 general election.[2] The proposition repealed parts of Proposition 47, passed during the 2014 general election, and amends the state constitution to increase penalties and allow felony charges for certain crimes.[3]

The proposition will allow for the authorization of the following:[3]

  • Increasing the penalty for repeat shoplifters (two or more past convictions) of $950 in value or less from a misdemeanor to a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison.
  • Allowing felony sentences for certain crimes such as theft or damage to property to be lengthened if the crime is committed by a group of three or more people.
  • Requiring that sentences for certain felonies such as drug dealing be served in prison.
  • Allowing people convicted of possession of illegal drugs (specifically those who possess certain drugs such as methamphetamines or fentanyl or those who have two or more past convictions for drug crimes) to be charged with a "treatment-mandated felony" instead of a misdemeanor in some cases. Upon completion of treatment, charges will be dismissed. Upon failure to complete treatment, charges stand and include up to three years in state prison.
  • Requiring courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs (such as methamphetamines, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine) that kill someone. This could allow for murder charges in the future if they later sell or provide illegal drugs to someone who dies.

Background

[edit]

In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified several felonies as misdemeanors. Proposition 47 passed with nearly 60%[4] of votes across California, and was supported by the editorial board of the New York Times,[5] the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times,[6] and the American Civil Liberties Union.[7] Support for Proposition 47 largely hinged on concerns about the overcrowding of California prisons, deemed an Eighth Amendment violation by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011,[8] as well as arguments for the reallocation of funds to other crime prevention measures.[7]

In the first five months after Proposition 47 was instated, prison populations dropped by approximately 9,000.[4] As per the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Plata, the prison population reduction necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements could be as high as 46,000 people.[8] As a result of severe overcrowding in California prisons, the findings of the District court in that case affirmed that, “[I]t is an uncontested fact that, on average, an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days due to constitutional deficiencies in the [California prisons’] medical delivery system.”[8][9]

In addition to making a significant reduction in prison populations, Proposition 47 reallocated savings from state incarceration costs in the following ways:[7] 65% to the Board of State and Community Corrections for drug treatment, mental health programs, and housing; 25% to the Board of Education to address truancy, and 10% to the California Victim Compensation Program to provide grants for victims of crime. The use of county-level savings were left to the discretion of county officials.[7] Since 2014, Proposition 47 has generated nearly $1 billion in savings from reductions in incarceration, with funds diverted to programming for homelessness, to reduce recidivism, and to support job seeking programs.[10]

Since then, prosecutors and police organizations have blamed the proposition for the state's increased retail theft, which in 2023 were reported to have reached the highest recorded level since 2000.[11] Statistics released in July 2024 by the California Department of Justice have stated that those earlier figures were inflated and that 2019 through 2024 figures indicate a decline in almost all major crime categories.[12] Some local officials have also blamed the state's increase in homelessness on Proposition 47, which eliminated the legal compulsion of treatment for those struggling from addiction and mental illnesses.[13] Statistics and analysis released from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) in February 2024 states that Proposition 47-funded programs reduced unemployment, homelessness and recidivism.[14]

In 2024, a campaign was started to qualify Proposition 36 for the November ballot. Despite being opposed by criminal justice reform groups and prominent Democrats such as Governor Gavin Newsom, who at first tried to negotiate competing legislation in order to keep the measure off the ballot[15] and then proposed a competing ballot measure,[16] the proposition gained strong support from Republicans and divided Democrats, with several prominent local officials such as San Francisco mayor London Breed and several members of the state legislature coming out in favor of the measure.[17]

Major financial backers of Proposition 36 include Walmart ($2.5 million), Home Depot ($1 million), Target ($1 million), In-N-Out Burger ($500,000), the California Correctional Peace Officers Association ($300,000) and Macy's ($215,000).[18]

Opposition

[edit]

The official opposition statement of Proposition 36 argues "Don't be fooled. Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less. It reignites the failed war on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes billions on prisons, while slashing crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. This puts prisons first and guts treatment. Vote No."[19]

Opponents stress the limited resources available for anyone charged with Prop 36's new Treatment Mandated Felony Care facilities for Californians with substance-use disorders. In addition, resources for those experiencing mental health crises are already insufficient and Prop 36 will only make matters worse. According to Sacramento County's behavioral health director, Dr. Quist, counties across the state "simply don't have enough capacity right now to take on a whole new population of folks that are getting mandated into treatment."[20]

Prop 36 will cost the state tens of millions of dollars in policing and incarceration,[21] funds that currently support mental health and drug treatment programs.[22] Moreover, mandated treatment has been demonstrated not to be effective, with studies pointing out that it actually causes more harm through its involuntary nature.[23]

Immigration and deportation concerns

[edit]

Immigration advocates have expressed strong concerns about Proposition 36, arguing that it could lead to an increase in deportations of non-citizen Californians, including green card holders, DACA recipients, and refugees. The proposition reclassifies certain misdemeanor offenses, such as drug and theft, as felonies, which could have severe immigration consequences. Under U.S immigration law, a felony conviction can be considered an “aggravated felony”, which often results in mandatory deportation regardless of the length of residency.[24]

Grisel Ruiz, a supervising attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center,[25] warned that Prop 36 would significantly increase the number of undocumented individuals facing deportation for minor offenses. For example, if “petty theft” misdemeanors become reclassified as felonies, then more immigrants–including green card holders–will be barred from getting legal status and may lose any legal status they previously had, including their ability to obtain a green card and their ability to access valuable waivers to fight deportation cases “which means deportation even if that would cause USC [U.S. Citizen] or LPR [Lawful Permanent Resident] dependents extraordinary hardship”[25] Advocates are concerned about the effect this could have on immigrant families in California because families are separated during deportation, leaving children without parents. This is particularly concerning in California because nearly half of all children, the majority of families have at least one immigrant parent. “one in four people in California is foreign born, and half of all children in California have at least one immigrant parent.”[24]

Public financing: allocation of funds

[edit]

Critics argue that Proposition 36 reinforces rigid sentencing laws that prioritize punishment over rehabilitation. The California Budget and Policy Center warns that Proposition 36 may impose additional unfunded financial burdens on both state and local governments.[26] This could force local leaders to cut funding for essential public services to manage these unexpected expenses.

The reduction of drug and theft-related felony charges to misdemeanor charges by Proposition 47 of 2014 has saved the state of California nearly one billion dollars in the last ten years, by incarcerating fewer people and imposing shorter sentences. Proposition 36 would remove significant components of Proposition 47, which allocated funds to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund.[27] This fund provided support for behavioral health services, K-12 education, and trauma recovery programs for crime victims. The latest estimate indicates that Proposition 47 has produced $95 million in savings for the 2024-25 state budget.[28] Funds that were saved by incarcerating fewer people were redirected to crime prevention and substance treatment programs. The reduced charge of a misdemeanor instead of a felony charge, has less of an impact on incarcerated people's employment opportunities and access to housing, which additionally creates cost savings.[29] The recidivism rates of Prop 47 reentry programs were 15.3%, between two and three times lower than the average recidivism rate for people who have served prison sentences.[29]

If Proposition 36 were to be enacted, the savings would diminish by tens of millions of dollars, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO),[30] or potentially vanish entirely, per the Center for Social Justice (CSJ) assessment.[31] Such changes would result in a substantial decrease in funding for programs aimed at crime reduction, youth support, and victim recovery. Essentially, Proposition 36 would shift tens of millions of dollars annually away from crucial behavioral health services and other essential initiatives back into the state prison system.

The California Budget and Policy Center released a report in which they estimated that Proposition 36 would increase prison costs, with the current estimated cost at $4,553,423,985 annually,[32] cutting funding for crucial services such as behavioral health services,  K-12 school programs for vulnerable youth, and trauma recovery services for crime victims, which have been supported with the savings that come from Prop 47. Another concern is that Prop 36 could push more people into homelessness since formerly incarcerated people are ten times more likely to experience homelessness.[33]

Increase in incarceration

[edit]

It is projected that Proposition 36 could increase the state prison population by 35% by 2029.[29]

The California Budget and Policy Center emphasizes how Proposition 36 advances an “incarceration-focused approach,”[34] rather than prioritizing smart investments in social programs that address the root causes of crime and promote community well-being. Proposition 36 ignores the success of previous sentencing reforms such as Proposition 47, which successfully reduced mass incarceration while maintaining the crime rate at levels significantly lower than historical peaks. "Incarceration-focused" approaches are not only ineffective but also costly and likely to exacerbate existing racial, economic, and health disparities, particularly for communities of color who are already disproportionately impacted by the carceral system.[34]

Proposition 36 will change the dynamics of people sentenced to county jail time and instead create prison sentences. The current estimated number of people in prison is approximately 90,000. If proposition 36 passes, it is estimated to create overcrowded prisons again, at an estimate of roughly 50,000 people incarcerated for drug possession and 33,000 more people in prison over the course of seven years.[32]

Opponents
State officials
U.S. senators
U.S. representatives
State senators
State assemblymembers
Local officials
County boards of supervisors
Newspapers
Organizations
Political parties

Support

[edit]

The official support statement of Proposition 36 argues that "Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and "smash-and-grabs" while holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws."[19]

Supporters
State officials
U.S. representatives
State senators
State assemblymembers
Local officials
County boards of supervisors
City councils
Individuals
Newspapers
Labor unions
Organizations
Political parties

Polling

[edit]
Date of opinion poll Conducted by Sample size[a] Margin of Error In favor Against Undecided
September 25 – October 1, 2024 UC Berkeley IGS[73] 3,045 (LV) ± 2.5% 60% 21% 20%
  1. ^ Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "California General Election November 5, 2024: State Ballot Measures - Statewide Results: Proposition 36". Retrieved November 7, 2024.
  2. ^ Salonga, Robert (November 6, 2024). "Voters approve Prop. 36 to toughen penalties for theft and drug crimes". The Mercury News. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  3. ^ a b "Proposition 36 Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute". Legislative Analyst's Office. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  4. ^ a b "Proposition 47 Delivers Nearly $1 Billion to California Communities". www.cjcj.org. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  5. ^ The Editorial Board (October 29, 2014). "California Leads on Justice Reform". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Editorial Board (June 10, 2014). "Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 47". Los Angeles Times.
  7. ^ a b c d American Civil Liberties Union of California. "Changing Gears: California's Shift to Smart Justice" (PDF). www.aclunc.org.
  8. ^ a b c "Brown, et al. v. Plata, et al., 563 U.S. 493 (2011)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  9. ^ Chesney-Lind, Meda (March 1991). "Patriarchy, Prisons, and Jails: A Critical Look at Trends in Women's Incarceration". The Prison Journal. 71 (1): 51–67. doi:10.1177/003288559107100106. ISSN 0032-8855.
  10. ^ "Proposition 47 Delivers Nearly $1 Billion to California Communities". www.cjcj.org. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  11. ^ Lofstrom, Magnus. "Commercial Burglaries Fell in 2023, but Shoplifting Continued to Rise". Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  12. ^ "Reforms Did Not Bring More Crime. Rates Are Near Record Lows". www.cjcj.org. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  13. ^ Dowling, Sarah (August 28, 2018). "Yolo DA: Prop. 47 contributing to homelessness". Woodland Daily Democrat. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  14. ^ Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) (February 2024). "Proposition 47 Cohort II Statewide Evaluation" (PDF). www.bscc.ca.gov.
  15. ^ Zavala, Ashley (June 8, 2024). "Gov. Newsom, Democratic leaders are trying to negotiate Prop 47 reform off the November ballot". KCRA. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  16. ^ Zavala, Ashley (June 22, 2024). "Gov. Newsom, Legislative leaders consider putting new crime initiative on November ballot". KCRA. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  17. ^ Zavala, Ashley (September 17, 2024). "Prop 36 explained: Toughening up the consequences for hard drug and theft crimes". KCRA. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  18. ^ "California Secretary of State - CalAccess - Campaign Finance". cal-access.sos.ca.gov. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  19. ^ a b "PROP 36 ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE". California Secretary of State. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  20. ^ Mihalovich, Cayla (October 16, 2024). "California ballot measure promises 'mass treatment' for drug crimes. Can counties provide it?". CalMatters. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  21. ^ "Understanding Proposition 36". California Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  22. ^ "Proposition 36 [Ballot]". lao.ca.gov. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  23. ^ Werb, D.; Kamarulzaman, A.; Meacham, M. C.; Rafful, C.; Fischer, B.; Strathdee, S. A.; Wood, E. (February 1, 2016). "The effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment: A systematic review". International Journal of Drug Policy. 28: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.005. ISSN 0955-3959. PMC 4752879. PMID 26790691.
  24. ^ a b Fry, Wendy (October 22, 2024). "California crime measure Prop. 36 could increase deportations". CalMatters. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  25. ^ a b "Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ILRC |". www.ilrc.org. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  26. ^ "Understanding Proposition 36". California Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  27. ^ "Proposition 47 Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund". sco.ca.gov. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  28. ^ "California awards $167 million in Prop 47 savings to communities for treatment and services". Governor of California. October 4, 2024. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  29. ^ a b c Staudt, Sarah (October 17, 2024). "California may take a big step backwards towards more incarceration with Proposition 36". Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  30. ^ "Proposition 36 [Ballot]". lao.ca.gov. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  31. ^ "Proposition 47 Delivers Nearly $1 Billion to California Communities". www.cjcj.org. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  32. ^ a b "A tool to estimate the fiscal and system impacts of Proposition 36". Californians for Safety and Justice. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  33. ^ "Understanding Proposition 36". California Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  34. ^ a b "Understanding Proposition 36". California Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  35. ^ a b c d e f g Bollag, Sophia. "Prop 36 has divided California Democrats — but many are refusing to weigh in at all". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  36. ^ a b c d e f g h i Duara, Nigel (August 26, 2024). "Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking". CalMatters. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  37. ^ Katzenberger, Tyler. "California 2026 governor hopefuls come out strong for single-payer health care". Politico. Retrieved October 1, 2024.
  38. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t "NO ON PROPOSITION 36". NoonProp36. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  39. ^ a b c d e f Shankar, Anusha (September 25, 2024). "LA supervisors vote 3-1 to oppose Prop 36, which would toughen penalties for some crimes". Los Angeles Daily News. SCNG. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  40. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u "California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  41. ^ Nixon, Nicole. "Proposition 36 explained: What the California retail theft ballot measure is asking you". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  42. ^ Chiriguayo, Danielle (September 24, 2024). "LA DA George Gascón stands by his progressive prosecutor ideals". KCRW. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  43. ^ a b Cadelago, Christopher. "Republicans: Don't let this SoCal jewel become San Francisco". Politico. Retrieved October 11, 2024.
  44. ^ Balakrishnan, Eleni (September 25, 2024). "District 5 candidates on Prop. 36 increasing punishment for crimes". Mission Local. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  45. ^ a b c d e Biesiada, Noah (October 8, 2024). "Orange County Supervisors Jump Into Street Crime Debate". Voice of OC. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  46. ^ "Endorsement: No on Proposition 36. California shouldn't revive the disastrous war on drugs". Los Angeles Times. September 22, 2024. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  47. ^ "The Green Party of California State Voter Guide Nov 2024". Green Party of California. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  48. ^ "Peace & Freedom Party Workers' Voters Guide, general election 2024". peaceandfreedom.us. September 11, 2024. Retrieved October 3, 2024.
  49. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap "California State Association of Counties announces support for Proposition 36". Lassen County News. September 4, 2024. Retrieved September 20, 2024.
  50. ^ Skropanic, Jessica. "California 1st Congressional District candidates LaMalfa, Yee in their own words". Redding Record-Searchlight. Gannett. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  51. ^ a b c "Support for Proposition 36". County of San Diego Board of Supervisors. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  52. ^ a b Pedroza, Art. "Prop. 36 endorsed by the OCDA, the OC Sheriff and the OC Supervisors, except for Sarmiento". Local OC News. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  53. ^ Johns, Tim (October 5, 2024). "Here's where Bay Area residents stand with Prop 36, a controversial crime prevention ballot measure". ABC7 News. ABC. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  54. ^ Korte, Lara. "California wants to lead on AI regulation, just not right now". Politico. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  55. ^ Gardiner, Dustin. "2026 governor field mum on ballot fights". Politico. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  56. ^ "PROPOSITION 36: THE HOMELESSNESS, DRUG ADDICTION, AND THEFT REDUCTION ACT" (PDF). Kern County Administrative Office. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  57. ^ Adams, Stacey. "County approves resolution supporting Prop. 36". Gold Country Media. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  58. ^ Workman, Hannah. "San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors support efforts to repeal Proposition 47". Stockton Record. Retrieved September 24, 2024.
  59. ^ Barron, Tiobe (October 3, 2024). "Supes endorse Prop. 36 to increase punishment for theft & drug crimes". Ojai Valley News. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  60. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y "Our Coalition". YesOn36. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  61. ^ a b c Ramirez, Alicia (September 4, 2024). "Riverside County Cities Adopt Resolutions In Support Of Prop 36". Riverside Record. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  62. ^ Chidbachian, Alexi (October 9, 2024). "Steve Garvey vs Adam Schiff: Where California U.S. Senate candidates stand on these top issues". FOX11 LA. FOX. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  63. ^ Editorial Board (September 6, 2024). "Editorial: Prop. 36's smart response to crime, addiction, homelessness". East Bay Times. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  64. ^ Editorial Board (September 15, 2024). "Editorial: Prop. 36's smart response to crime, addiction, homelessness". Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  65. ^ "Napa Valley Community Voices: Prop. 36 will provide much needed criminal justice reform". Napa Valley Register. October 2024. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  66. ^ "Endorsement: Yes on Prop. 36: Time to free the detergent". San Diego Union-Tribune. September 27, 2024. Retrieved September 28, 2024.
  67. ^ "Editorial | Yes on Proposition 36, a smart response to drug deaths, thefts and homelessness". Santa Cruz Sentinel. September 25, 2024. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  68. ^ "Our View: Vote YES on Proposition 36 — criminal justice reform". Bakersfield Californian. September 22, 2024. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  69. ^ Editorial Board (September 6, 2024). "Editorial: Prop. 36's smart response to crime, addiction, homelessness". Mercury News. Retrieved September 15, 2024.
  70. ^ Schultheis, Emily. "Alliance pushing California's tough-on-crime plan is unraveling. Just weeks before election". Politico. Retrieved October 2, 2024.
  71. ^ "Campaigns & Elections". CRPA. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  72. ^ Kabateck, John (July 10, 2024). "State's Leading Small Business Group Endorses Proposition 36". NFIB. Retrieved October 9, 2024.
  73. ^ DiCamillo, Mark (October 4, 2024). "Californians' backing of Prop. 36 remains solid". UC Berkeley IGS. Retrieved October 12, 2024.

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2024_California_Proposition_36&oldid=1256883923"