Proposition 36

Proposition 36, if passed this Nov., will increase felony charges, turning some current misdemeanors [low-profile criminal offenses] into felonies [high-profile criminal offenses]. Additionally, the proposition would lengthen certain felony sentences and strengthen certain drug and theft punishments by requiring prison time. 

The proposition has gained overwhelming support from the public, with Politico finding that 71 percent of prospective voters are in favor of its passing. 

While California is usually represented by an overwhelmingly liberal electorate, Prop. 36 is a very “tough on crime” and some may argue conservative policy change. Former Samo student and AP Government teacher Nathaniel Munoz Acker (’83) notes the concerns many have had in regards to crime, and their reasoning for wanting stricter policies.

“It’s pretty shocking to see big groups of people going in and smashing businesses, specifically small businesses and many have become alarmed by this rise in crime,” Acker said. 

Those in support of Prop. 36 believe that if the proposition doesn’t get passed, there is a chance crime will become worse and that the communities suffering will continue to do so due to the lack of prosecution for criminals. Many have witnessed their communities being affected by the lack of accountability, such as student Yasha Shaw (’25).

“The problem with having misdemeanors is it incentivises people; they don’t have to suffer the consequences of a felony,” Shaw said. 

Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014, changed some low-level crimes from possible felonies to misdemeanors. This law has been associated by some with rampant theft. Voters are now being given the chance to reverse the established policy with the addition of Prop. 36. Although many see Prop. 36 as a positive step forward, others believe there are more pressing issues that need to be tended to first, like Samo Student Noah Pust (’26). 

“In order to minimize crime, you need to solve the root cause through funding for education, specifically drug-related education, health care and the housing crisis,” Pust said. 

The 2024 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count found that approximately 75,000 people in the county are unhoused.  Those opposed to Prop. 36 believe that if the proposition is passed, time and resources would be spent implementing the proposition into law instead of solving a root issue such as homelessness. 

With California already running in debt, the proposition could further the state’s deficit. Many are opposed to the passing of Proposition 36 including Acker, who believes that the proposition could potentially worsen this issue. 

“In California, we have this process where the legislatures are supposed to make a bill into a law, which requires funding,” Acker said.  “The state will have to come up with the money, which will cost us hundreds of millions or billions of dollars,” Acker stated.

Acker also took note that the policy of increased jail sentencing illustrated in Prop. 36 could re-lead to the overcrowding of jails.

“Although I agree that certain punishments need to be stiffer, there is a danger with overcrowded jails again and lack of resources to get people into rehab,” Acker said.

On Nov. 5, the decision to or not to pass the proposition will be finalized. Prop. 36 can be voted for through mail-in ballot or at any nearby polling station.