(The Center Square) – Legislation that would allocate $400 million to a tough-on-crime measure in California was discussed during a committee hearing Tuesday morning.
Senate Bill 926, the Funding of Proposition 36 Act, spends $400 million of the state’s taxpayer-funded general fund to enforce Prop. 36.
No vote occurred on SB 296 on Tuesday morning because the Senate Public Safety Committee, which heard the bill, did not have a quorum. But the panel is expected to later have a quorum and vote on the bill before its meeting ends Tuesday afternoon.
California voters passed Prop. 36 in 2024 with more than 68% of the vote. The proposition elevated certain drug and theft-related misdemeanor crimes to felonies, making sentences stricter for those convicted of such crimes.
Prop. 36 also made treatment mandatory for certain drug-related crimes and required courts to tell those convicted of drug-related crimes that they are liable to be charged with murder if they give drugs to someone who then dies from that drug.
However, Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed Prop. 36. After its passage, he allocated roughly $100 million to enforcing the proposition in his budget – far less than what the measure’s advocates asked for. This year, Newsom didn’t allocate any additional funds to enforcing Prop. 36 in his 2026-27 budget, which was released in January.
Newsom, through a spokesperson, previously told The Center Square via email that counties are responsible for allocating funding themselves for implementing Prop. 36.
“The purpose of my bill is simple and straightforward,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach and author of Senate Bill 926, testified during a Senate Public Safety Committee meeting on Tuesday morning. “It was introduced to provide funding for the implementation and administration of this law. I believe the state should be providing adequate funding for our cities and counties to implement this initiative.”
Those who advocated for funding for Prop. 36 testified at the Capitol that the measure gives families with loved ones who struggle with drug addiction the ability to get them court-mandated treatment as part of their sentence when convicted of a drug-related crime.
“Unfortunately, many of us have a personal experience with a loved one who has struggled with substance use disorder,” Amy Costa, who represented the California State Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups, testified on Tuesday morning. “We know how incredibly difficult it can be for those battling addiction to successfully complete treatment. It is even more difficult and complex for justice-involved individuals to overcome substance use disorder.”
Support services are necessary for those convicted of crimes involving drugs to complete that treatment, Costa added during her testimony.
“SB 926 provides a reasonable funding methodology for providing local governments with funding to provide both treatment and support services,” Costa, who also spoke on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California, testified. “Counties are managing increasingly complex cases, requiring structured treatment, physical detention and increased monitoring.”
However, those who opposed the bill testified on Tuesday that the legislation was an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds.
“While we acknowledge the voters’ intent with Prop. 36 and the need for increased investments in behavioral health, even with the recent amendments, SB 926 is a fiscally reckless solution that fundamentally misallocates the state’s resources,” Kapri Walker, California government affairs manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, testified. “As California faces a significant budget shortfall and ongoing cuts to federal funding, this bill would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars from the general fund to sheriffs, county probation and other entities without necessary transparency.”
Allocating that much of the state’s taxpayer dollars is unsustainable, Walker said, especially to local agencies that already have their own revenue streams.
“We cannot prioritize a flawed funding bill when our essential investments in behavioral health, food security, housing and health care are at risk,” Walker testified.
