California Proposition 5, Nonviolent Drug Offender Sentences and Rehabilitation Initiative (2008)

California Proposition 5
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Drug crime policy
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 5 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was defeated.

A "yes" voted supported this ballot measure to expand drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, increase prison and parole rehabilitation programs, allow inmates to earn additional credits for participation in rehabilitation programs, and reduce penalties for certain marijuana possession crimes.

A "no" voted opposed this ballot measure to expand drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, increase prison and parole rehabilitation programs, allow inmates to earn additional credits for participation in rehabilitation programs, and reduce penalties for certain marijuana possession crimes.

Election results

California Proposition 5
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,155,206	40.52%
No		7,566,783	59.48%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 5 was as follows:

“

Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses. Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole. Substantially shortens parole for certain drug offenses; increases parole for serious and violent felonies. Divides Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority between two Secretaries, one with six year fixed term and one serving at pleasure of Governor. Provides five year fixed terms for deputy secretaries. Creates 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Increased state costs over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community. State savings over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs. Net one-time state savings on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that eventually could exceed $2.5 billion. Unknown net fiscal effect on county operations and capital outlay.

”

Support

Yes on Prop 5 led the campaign in support of Proposition 5.

Supporters

• Drug Policy Alliance

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Our state prisons are badly overcrowded. Since the Legislature has been unable to solve the problem, we, the people, must do it with Proposition 5. Prisons cost us $10 billion every year, but California spends little on rehabilitation. That’s short-sighted. Young people with drug problems can’t get treatment. Too many nonviolent adults with addictions crowd our prisons. Tens of thousands cycle in and out, untreated. Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, is a smart way to solve these problems by treating violent and nonviolent offenders differently. Prop. 5 reduces prison overcrowding safely, pays for itself annually, and over time saves California $2.5 billion. Here’s what it does: FIRST, Prop. 5 gives nonviolent youth with drug problems access to drug treatment. SECOND, it reduces the number of nonviolent drug offenders going into prison by providing drug treatment programs with real accountability. THIRD, it requires the prison system to provide rehabilitation to prisoners and parolees. For at-risk youth, California now offers no drug treatment. Families have nowhere to turn. Prop. 5 creates treatment options for young people with drug problems. They can be referred to treatment by family, school counselors, or physicians. Those caught with a small amount of marijuana will get early intervention programs. In this way, we can steer youth away from addiction and crime. For nonviolent drug offenders, treatment works. Voter-approved Proposition 36 (2000) provided treatment, not jail, for nonviolent drug users. One-third completed treatment and became productive, tax-paying citizens. Since 2000, Prop. 36 has graduated 84,000 people and saved almost $2 billion. Prop. 5 builds upon Prop. 36 and improves it. Prop. 5 offers greater accountability and better treatment for nonviolent offenders. People must pay a share of treatment costs. Judges can jail offenders who don’t comply with treatment, and give longer sentences to those who repeatedly break the rules. For state prisons, Prop. 5 requires all offenders to serve their time and make restitution. After release, they’ll get help to reintegrate into society. Some will need education or job training, others drug treatment. Prop. 5 gives former inmates the chance to turn their lives around. Prop. 5 holds nonviolent parolees accountable for minor parole violations with community sanctions, drug treatment, or jail time. For serious offenses they’ll be returned to state prison. Parolees with a history of violence, gang crimes, or sex offenses can be returned to prison for any parole violation. Treating violent and nonviolent offenders differently is the smart fi x for overcrowded prisons. Prop. 5 saves $2.5 billion within a few years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst. Prop. 5 makes sure that there will always be room for violent criminals in prison. It also toughens parole requirements for violent criminals. YES on Prop. 5 is a smart, safe way to: Prevent crime with drug treatment for youth; Provide rehab, not prison, for nonviolent drug offenders; Reduce prison overcrowding; Keep violent offenders in prison; and Free up billions for schools, health care, and highways ”

Opposition

People Against the Proposition 5 Deception led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 5. Actor Martin Sheen was a spokesperson for the campaign.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• Former Gov. Gray Davis (D)
• Former Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
• Former Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
• Former Gov. George Deukmejian (R)

Parties

• California Republican Party

Organizations

• California Correctional Peace Officers Association

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Proposition 5 shortens parole for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons from 3 years—to just 6 months. That’s why Proposition 5 has been called the “Drug Dealers’ Bill of Rights.” But the damage Proposition 5 will cause to our schools and neighborhoods doesn’t just end with making life easier for dope peddlers. This dangerous measure could also provide, in effect, a “get-out-of-jail-free” card to many of those accused of child abuse, domestic violence, mortgage fraud, identity theft, insurance fraud, auto theft, and a host of other crimes, letting them effectively escape criminal prosecution. Proposition 5 even provides a way to avoid prosecution for those accused of killing innocent victims while driving under the influence—just one of the reasons it is strongly opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). California law enforcement, including our police chiefs and county prosecutors overwhelmingly oppose Proposition 5 because they know it is just a veiled attempt to dramatically slash parole time for convicted drug criminals—including dealers caught with up to $50,000 of meth. Proposition 5 also establishes two new bureaucracies with virtually no accountability, and which will cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. The social costs, however, of increased drug crimes, domestic violence, identity theft, and consumer fraud will be incalculable. Proposition 5 weakens drug rehabilitation programs by allowing defendants to continue using drugs while in rehab. These weakened programs would be funded by draining money away from the real treatment programs that actually do work. Proponents want you to believe this is about keeping “nonviolent offenders” out of prison, but according to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, “No first-time offender arrested in California solely for drug possession goes to prison—ever.” The real beneficiaries of Proposition 5 are the violent criminals who can escape prosecution for their violent acts by claiming they weren’t responsible—“the meth made me do it.” Law enforcement professionals across California are bracing for the wave of felons that will be unleashed on our communities when parole for convicted meth dealers is slashed from three years to just six months, and when the deterrent for identity theft, domestic violence, and child abuse is reduced. We simply cannot afford the massive havoc this measure will wreak on our families, schools, and neighborhoods. Please join with bi-partisan leaders representing victims’ groups, medical professionals, peace officers, and district attorneys, as well as business, labor, and community leaders in rejecting this dangerously flawed initiative. Protect our neighborhoods from violent crime. Vote “NO” on Proposition 5. ”

Media editorials

Support

• San Francisco Bay Guardian
• Orange County Register

Opposition

• Los Angeles Times
• The Pasadena Star News
• San Diego Union-Tribune
• Sacramento Bee
• San Francisco Chronicle
• The Fresno Bee
• San Jose Mercury News
• Stockton Record
• Contra Costa Times
• The Bakersfield Californian

Path to the ballot

Petition drive

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.

The petition drive conducted to qualify the measure for the fall ballot was conducted by PCI Consultants, Inc. at a cost of about $1.762 million.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Lawsuit

Opponents of Proposition 5, including thirty-two district attorneys and former California governors Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, petitioned the California Supreme Court to issue a preemptory writ of mandate to remove Proposition 5 from the ballot. The lawsuit alleged that Proposition 5 was an attempt to alter the constitution via statute. The California Supreme Court declined to issue the preemptory writ.

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• Drug crime policy on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• November 4, 2008, General Election Voter Guide