California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


California Proposition 47
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 4, 2014
Topic
Civil and criminal trials and Drug crime policy
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 47 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2014. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported classifying certain crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant had prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes; allowing resentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors; and creating the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund to receive appropriations based on savings from the initiative.

A "no" vote opposed classifying certain crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant had prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes; allowing resentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors; and creating the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund to receive appropriations based on savings from the initiative.


Aftermath

Debate: Did Proposition 47 cause an increase in criminal activities in California?

The effect of Proposition 47, a ballot initiative approved in 2014, on criminal activities in succeeding years is a topic of debate in California.

Yes: Proposition 47 caused an increase in criminal activities.

The claim that Proposition 47 caused an increase in criminal activities focuses on the proposition's provision reducing certain felonies to misdemeanors.

"Some people calculate, 'Hey, you know, I don't want to go over the $950, so let me steal $949 worth of property'," said San Francisco Police Chief William Scott.[1] San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman described Proposition 47 as a "virtual get-out-of-jail-free card."[2]

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a report that found a relationship between Proposition 47 and "a rise in larceny thefts, especially thefts from motor vehicles." Researchers found no relationship between violent crimes and Proposition 47. "We estimate that Prop. 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate of about 135 per 100,000 residents, an increase of close to 9 percent compared to the 2014 rate," the report stated. The PPIC utilized a synthetic control group to approximate the state's crime rate.[3] Morgan Hill Police Chief David Swing, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, responded, saying that the PPIC's conclusions "are consistent with what police chiefs across the state have seen since 2014."[4]

Candidates in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election discussed Proposition 47. Republicans Larry Elder[5], John Cox[6], Kevin Faulconer[7], Ted Gaines[8], and Kevin Kiley[9] supported repealing or amending Proposition 47.

No: Proposition 47 did not cause an increase in criminal activities.

The claim that Proposition 47 did not cause an increase in criminal activities focuses on whether a causal relationship between the ballot initiative and crime rates can be established.

Charis Kubrin, a professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine, stated that criminal justice reforms, like Proposition 47, had become a scapegoat for changes in criminal activities. Kubrin and Bradley Bartos employed a synthetic control group to approximate the state's crime rate without Proposition 47. Kurbon and Bartos wrote, "In the case of Prop 47, almost from the start, strong claims have been made regarding the measure’s impact on crime rates throughout the state—in the absence of any data or analysis to back those claims up. Opponents routinely cite rising crime rates as 'proof' that Prop 47 is harming public safety, prompting repeated calls to repeal the measure. Yet crime rates going up (or down for that matter) tell us nothing about the source of those trends, and studies such as this one are necessary to determine any link between criminal justice reform and crime rates."[10] Kubrin said, "The evidence seems to be mounting that Prop 47 is not the culprit here or at least not the key culprit."[1]

Criminal Proposition 20 (2020)

See also: California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020)

On November 3, 2020, Californians rejected Proposition 20, a citizen-initiated ballot measure. Proposition 20 was designed to make changes to Proposition 47, as well as AB 109 (2011) and Proposition 57 (2016). According to Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-9), the goal of the initiative was to "[reform] the unintended consequences of reforms to better protect the public."[11] Former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) disagreed with Cooper's assessment, saying Proposition 20 was the "latest scare tactic on criminal justice reform."[12]

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit based in San Francisco, described AB 109 and Propositions 47 and 57 as successful sentencing reforms that reduced overcrowding in state prisons.[13] Andrew Do, chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, described the measures as "California’s dangerous trifecta."[14]

Regarding Proposition 47, Proposition 20 would have made specific types of theft and fraud crimes, including firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card, chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies, rather than misdemeanors. The ballot initiative would have also established two additional types of crimes in state code—serial crime and organized retail crime—and charged them as wobblers (crimes chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies).[15] Proposition 20 would have also required persons convicted of certain misdemeanors that were classified as wobblers or felonies before 2014, such shoplifting, grand theft, and drug possession, along with several other crimes, including domestic violence and prostitution with a minor, to submit to collection of DNA samples for state and federal databases.[15]

Election results

California Proposition 47

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

4,238,156 59.61%
No 2,871,943 40.39%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

The initiative reduced the classification of most nonviolent property and drug crimes—including theft and fraud for amounts up to $950—from a felony to a misdemeanor.

What did the measure do?

The initiative:[16][17]

  • Classified certain crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant has prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes.
  • Permitted re-sentencing for those serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors. Under Proposition 47, 10,000 inmates were eligible for resentencing, according to Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice.[18]
  • Required a review of criminal history and risk assessment of any individuals before re-sentencing to ensure that they do not pose a risk to the public.
  • Created a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. The fund was set to receive appropriations based on savings accrued by the state during the fiscal year, as compared to the previous fiscal year, due to the initiative’s implementation. Estimates ranged from $150 million to $250 million per year.
  • Distributed funds from the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund as follows: 25 percent to the Department of Education, 10 percent to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and 65 percent to the Board of State and Community Correction.

Which crimes were affected?

The measure required misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:[16][17]

  • Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
  • Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
  • Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
  • Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
  • Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
  • Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
  • Personal use of most illegal drugs

In January 2015, it was announced that as many as 1 million Californians could be eligible to change past felony convictions on their records under Proposition 47. [19]

Who supported the measure?

The initiative was pushed by George Gascón, San Francisco district attorney, and William Lansdowne, former San Diego police chief.[20] Supporters referred to it as The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 47 was as follows:

“

Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.

• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.

• Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.

• Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.

• Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims.		”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Fiscal impact statement

(Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its Director of Finance.)

“
  • Net state criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These savings would be spent on school truancy and dropout prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.
  • Net county criminal justice system savings that could reach several hundred million dollars annually.[21]
 ”

Support

Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools 2014.jpg

The organization that led the campaign in support of the initiative was Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools.[22]

Supporters

See also: A full list of supporters

Officials

Former officials

Municipalities

Organizations


An ad featuring the group Artists for 47.

Individuals

Arguments in favor


A Community Coalition ad titled, "This Family's Story Shows How Prop 47 Can Fix Our Prison System."

Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools provided a summary of the initiative, including following excerpt:[41]

“ Stops wasting prison space on low-level nonviolent crimes: Changes the lowest level nonviolent drug possession and petty theft crimes from felonies to simple misdemeanors. It authorizes resentencing for anyone who is incarcerated for these offenses and poses no threat to public safety. These changes apply to juveniles as well as adults.

Keeps rapists, murderers and child molesters in prison: Maintains the current law for registered sex offenders and anyone with prior convictions for rape, murder or child molestation.[21]

”


Newt Gingrich (R), Speaker of the U.S. House from 1995 to 1999, and B. Wayne Hughes Jr., a businessman and early supporter of Proposition 47, said similar policies have been implemented in "red states," like Texas and South Carolina, and have "shown how reducing prison populations can also reduce cost and crime." The following is an excerpt from an editorial they co-wrote:[29]

“ Over-incarceration makes no fiscal sense. California spends $62,396 per prisoner each year, and $10 billion overall, on its corrections system. That is larger than the entire state budget of 12 other states. This expenditure might be worth it if we were safer because of it. But with so many offenders returning to prison, we clearly aren't getting as much public safety — or rehabilitation — as we should for this large expenditure. Meanwhile, California spends only $9,200 per K-12 student, and the average salary for a new teacher is $41,926. And as California built 22 prisons in 30 years, it built only one public university.[21] ”



A Community Coalition ad titled, "Prop 47 helps women put their lives back together."

Bishop Jaime Soto, president of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops and Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, said Proposition 47 received a unanimous endorsement from the state’s Catholic bishops. The state's 10 million Catholics distributed a statement explaining the endorsement. The following is an excerpt from the statement:[35]

“ All human life is sacred and, therefore, all social policies and actions in the realm of criminal justice – as with all of our individual and societal actions - must begin with respect for the life and dignity of the human person. In the context of criminal justice, this means that we must first stand in solidarity with victims. When families are shattered, communities are ripped apart and lives are destroyed. We must seek healing and restoration to the fullest extent possible.[21] ”


Kathy Young-Hood of the Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, criticizing the state's plan to expand prisons, said:[42]

“ I've lived in neighborhoods that had too much crime and too few opportunities for our youth. And in 2004, my only child, Roger Kelvin Young Jr., was killed at age 25 when a home invasion occurred at the house he was visiting in San Francisco. The killer was never identified or caught. The lack of resolution was like another trauma on top of the devastation I felt from the murder itself. Meanwhile, I see plenty of people going to prison for lesser crimes -- and coming back worse. This experience opened my eyes to how poorly our justice system serves victims and stops cycles of crime. Instead of putting our law enforcement resources toward serious crime and investing in community level prevention and rehabilitation, our prisons cast a costly, wide net -- and let everybody down.[21] ”

A Community Coalition ad titled, "Are we paying to make our children criminals?."


San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón (D) argued:[26]

“ I think, increasingly, the public is more aware of the failures of the last 2 1/2 decades of our criminal justice system. The question is: Do we want to make communities safer or just punish people? If we really care about public safety, what we are proposing is a much better model.[21] ”


The AFL-CIO, in the union's official endorsement of Proposition 47, stated:[43]

“ he impact of mass incarceration can be felt on neighborhoods, families and individuals across the nation. As a result, many already-impoverished neighborhoods have lost thousands of working-age men and women whose lives are forever affected by mass incarceration... The AFL-CIO strongly supports Proposition 47: Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014—which would reduce the impact of a felony conviction on communities, including increasing access to the ballot by those who have been disenfranchised—and encourages affiliate unions to communicate this important matter to their members. Reducing sentences from felonies to misdemeanors also will reduce barriers to unemployment insurance, social services and housing brought about by felony convictions.[21] ”

Official arguments

The official arguments in support of Proposition 47 for the 2014 General Election Voter Guide were submitted by George Gascon, district attorney of City and County of San Francisco; William Lansdowne, former chief of police of San Diego, San Jose, and Richmond; and Dionne Wilson, victims’ advocate for Crime Survivors for Safety & Justice:[44]

“ PROPOSITION 47 IS SUPPORTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIME VICTIMS AND TEACHERS.

We in the law enforcement community have come together in support of Proposition 47 because it will:

  • Improve public safety.
  • Reduce prison spending and government waste.
  • Dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to K–12 schools, crime victim assistance, mental health treatment and drug treatment.

Proposition 47 is sensible. It focuses law enforcement dollars on violent and serious crime while providing new funding for education and crime prevention programs that will make us all safer.

Here’s how Proposition 47 works:

  • Prioritizes Serious and Violent Crime: Stops wasting prison space on petty crimes and focuses law enforcement resources on violent and serious crime by changing low-level nonviolent crimes such as simple drug possession and petty theft from felonies to misdemeanors.
  • Keeps Dangerous Criminals Locked Up: Authorizes felonies for registered sex offenders and anyone with a prior conviction for rape, murder or child molestation.
  • Saves Hundreds of Millions of Dollars: Stops wasting money on warehousing people in prisons for nonviolent petty crimes, saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds every year.
  • Funds Schools and Crime Prevention: Dedicates the massive savings to crime prevention strategies in K–12 schools, assistance for victims of crime, and mental health treatment and drug treatment to stop the cycle of crime.

For too long, California’s overcrowded prisons have been disproportionately draining taxpayer dollars and law enforcement resources, and incarcerating too many people convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses.

The objective, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office carefully studied Proposition 47 and concluded that it could save 'hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which would be spent on truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.'

The state spends more than $9,000,000,000 per year on the prison system. In the last 30 years California has built 22 new prisons but only one university.

Proposition 47 invests in solutions supported by the best criminal justice science, which will increase safety and make better use of taxpayer dollars.

We are:

  • The District Attorney of San Francisco, former Assistant Police Chief for the Los Angeles Police Department, and former Chief of Police for San Francisco.
  • The former Chief of Police for the cities of San Diego, San Jose, and Richmond.
  • A crime survivor, crime victims’ advocate, and widow of a San Leandro police officer killed in the line of duty.

We support Proposition 47 because it means safer schools and neighborhoods.

Joining us in our support of Proposition 47 are other law enforcement leaders and crime victims, teachers, rehabilitation experts, business leaders, civil rights organizations, faith leaders, conservatives and liberals, Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Please join us, and VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 47. For more information or to ask questions about Proposition 47 we invite you to visit VoteYes47.com.[21]

”

Donors

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of December 31, 2014
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $10,976,491
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $551,800

Four ballot measure campaign committees were registered in support of the initiative as of December 31, 2014:[45]

Committee Amount raised Amount spent
Women's Foundation of California - Yes on 47 $25,000 $25,000
Yes of Prop. 47, Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools $10,606,070 $9,285,680
Yes on 47 Sponsored by PICO California $260,421 $395,597
California Calls Action Fund - Yes on 47 $85,000 $599,805
Total $10,976,491 $10,306,082

The following were the donors who had contributed $100,000 or more to the campaign supporting the initiative as of December 31, 2014:[45]

Donor Amount
American Civil Liberties Union $3,500,000
Open Society Policy Center $1,460,112
B. Wayne Hughes, Jr. $1,255,000
Atlantic Advocacy Fund $850,000
Molly Munger $325,448
Nick Pritzker $250,000
Reed Hastings $246,664
M. Quinn Delaney $200,000
Cari Tuna $150,000
Steven C. Phillips $125,000
Sean Parker $100,000
Drug Policy Action $100,000

Opposition

No47Logo.png

The campaign against the proposition was led by Californians Against Proposition 47.[46]

Opponents

Officials

  • U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)[47]
  • Shelley Zimmerman, San Diego chief of police[48]
  • Nancy O'Malley, Alameda County district attorney[49]
  • Bill Brown, Santa Barbara county sheriff[49]
  • Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County district attorney[49]
  • John Robertson, Napa County sheriff[49]
  • Stephen Wagstaffe, San Mateo County district attorney[49]
  • Mark Peterson, Contra Costa County district attorney[49]
  • Jill Ravitch, Sonoma County district attorney[49]
  • Thomas Allman, Mendocino County sheriff[49]
  • Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County district attorney[49]
  • Michael Webb, Redondo Beach city attorney[49]
  • David Eyster, Mendocino County district attorney[49]
  • John McMahon, San Bernardino County sheriff-coroner[49]
  • Steve Freitas, Sonoma County sheriff[49]
  • Jan Scully, Sacramento County district attorney[49]
  • Thomas Cavallero, Merced County sheriff-coroner[49]
  • Lisa Green, Kern County district attorney[49]
  • Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff[49]
  • Dean Growdon, Lassen County sheriff[49]
  • Birgit Fladager, Stanislaus County district attorney[49]
  • Scott Jones, Sacramento County sheriff[49]
  • Thomas Cooke, Mariposa County district attorney[49]
  • Greg Hagwood, Plumas County sheriff[49]
  • David Hollister, Plumas County district attorney[49]
  • Greg Strickland, Kings County district attorney[49]
  • Bruce Haney, Trinity County sheriff[49]
  • Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou County district attorney[49]
  • Todd Riebe, Amador County district attorney[49]
  • John Anderson, Madera County sheriff[49]

Organizations

  • National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children[49]
  • National Association of Drug Court Professionals[49]
  • California Coalition Against Sexual Assault[49]
  • California Police Chiefs Association[49]
  • California District Attorneys Association[49]
  • Crime Victims United[49]
  • League of California Cities[49]
  • San Mateo County Board of Supervisors[49]
  • Klaas Kids[49]
  • Riverside County Board of Supervisors[49]
  • California Retailers Association[49]
  • Crime Victims Action Alliance[49]
  • California Republican Party[50]
  • California State Sheriffs Association[49]
  • California Peace Officers Association[49]
  • California Correctional Supervisors Association[49]

Arguments against

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) argued:[47]

“ Prop. 47 would do two things. First, it would reclassify a wide range of crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor. This would mean shorter prison sentences for serious crimes like stealing firearms, identity theft and possessing dangerous narcotics such as cocaine and date rape drugs.

Second, Prop. 47 would result in the resentencing and release of thousands of individuals already convicted of these crimes. The crimes that would be reclassified from a felony to a misdemeanor are not minor crimes. For instance, the penalty for stealing a firearm valued at up to $950 would be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, reducing a sentence from up to three years in prison today to a maximum of just 12 months under Prop. 47. Stolen firearms often end up in the hands of felons and others who cannot legally possess them, where they are used to commit violent crimes. Theft of a firearm should be punished as a felony, plain and simple.[21]

”


The Alliance for a Safer California had a section on its "No on Prop 47" website labeled "Facts" wherein it gave a list of the organization's arguments for opposition to Proposition 47. The following is an excerpt from the list:[51]

“ Prop 47 is a lengthy piece of legislation with many hidden provisions. Some of the not-so-obvious things Prop 47 will do are:
  • Change crimes like purse and phone snatching -- where thieves grab expensive property right off your body -- into petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar.
  • Make possession of "date rape" drugs a misdemeanor.
  • Prevent many commercial burglars from being charged with a felony as long as they strike during work hours -- when it's most dangerous for employees.
  • Make stealing a handgun -- which is often done to commit violent crimes -- a misdemeanor in almost all cases.
  • Reduce sentences for muggers, burglars, cocaine and heroin dealers, and other dangerous criminals who pled guilty to lesser offenses like grand theft or possession.
  • Make receiving property obtained through extortion a misdemeanor (up to $950).
  • Make stealing horses and other animals a misdemeanor in many cases.[21]
 ”


The California Police Chiefs Association made the following arguments against the initiative:[52] {{Quote|

  • Prop 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.
  • Prop 47 will burden our criminal justice system. This measure will overcrowd jails with dangerous felons who should be in state prison and jam California’s courts with hearings to provide “Get Out of Prison Free” cards.


San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman stated:[48]

“ It basically eliminates the automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. In the first six months of this year, in the city of San Diego we’ve had 115 guns that were stolen in burglaries. And I can tell you that people are not going to steal guns so they can add them to their gun collection. They steal them to commit crimes. ... Under Proposition 47, it would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. I can tell you that almost all handguns, which are the majority of the guns that are stolen, retail below $950.[21] ”


The National Association of Drug Court Professionals said:[53]

“ Proposition 47 provides for virtually no accountability, supervision or treatment for addicted offenders. Prop 47 removes the legal incentive for seriously addicted offenders to seek treatment. ... Proposition 47 turns a blind eye to over two decades of research and practice that demonstrates addicted offenders need structure and accountability in addition to treatment to become sober.[21] ”

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 47 for the 2014 General Election Voter Guide were submitted by Christopher W. Boyd, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; Harriet Salarno, president of Crime Victims United; Gilbert G. Otero, president of the California District Attorneys Association:[44]

“

California law enforcement, business leaders, and crime-victim advocates all urge you to vote NO on Proposition 47. Proposition 47 is a dangerous and radical package of illconceived policies wrapped in a poorly drafted initiative, which will endanger Californians.

The proponents of this dangerous measure have already admitted that Proposition 47 will make 10,000 felons eligible for early release. According to independent analysis, many of those 10,000 felons have violent criminal histories.

Here is what Prop. 47’s backers aren’t telling you:

  • Prop. 47 will require the release of thousands of dangerous inmates. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many other serious crimes will be eligible for early release under Prop. 47. These early releases will be virtually mandated by Proposition 47. While Prop. 47’s backers say judges will be able to keep dangerous offenders from being released early, this is simply not true. Prop. 47 prevents judges from blocking the early release of prisoners except in very rare cases. For example, even if the judge finds that the inmate poses a risk of committing crimes like kidnapping, robbery, assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, carjacking or felonies committed on behalf of a criminal street gang, Proposition 47 requires their release.
  • Prop. 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop. 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don’t steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.
  • Prop. 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.
  • Prop. 47 will burden our criminal justice system. This measure will overcrowd jails with dangerous felons who should be in state prison and jam California’s courts with hearings to provide “Get Out of Prison Free” cards. California has plenty of laws and programs that allow judges and prosecutors to keep first-time, low-level offenders out of jail if it is appropriate. Prop. 47 would strip judges and prosecutors of that discretion. When a career criminal steals a firearm, or a suspected sexual predator possesses date rape drugs, or a carjacker steals yet another vehicle, there needs to be an option besides a misdemeanor slap on the wrist. Proposition 47 is bad for public safety. Please vote NO.[21]
 ”

Donors

One ballot measure campaign committee was registered in opposition to the initiative as of December 31, 2014:[45]

Committee Amount raised Amount spent
Californians Against Prop. 47, Sponsored by California Public Saftey Institute $551,800 $549,792
Total $551,800 $549,792

The following were the donors who had contributed $10,000 or more to the campaign opposing the initiative as of December 31, 2014:[45]

Donor Amount
Peace Officers Research Association of California Political Issues Committee $286,000
Aladdin Bail Bonds $49,900
California Association of Highway Patrolmen PAC $25,000
California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police Issues Committee $25,000
Lexington National Insurance Corp. $25,000
California Narcotics Officers Association $13,500
Artichoke Joe's Casino $10,000

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2014

Support

  • East Bay Express: "This badly needed measure would save the state hundreds of million of dollars in prison costs each year, and the savings would be used to prevent school dropouts and truancy, and to pay for more mental health and drug abuse treatment programs. It's a no-brainer."[54]
  • Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 47 would do a great deal to stop the ongoing and unnecessary flow of Californians to prison for nonviolent and nonserious offenses and would, crucially, reduce the return flow of offenders from prison back to their neighborhoods in a condition — hardened by their experience, hampered by their felony records, unready for employment or education, likely mentally ill or addicted — that leaves them only too likely to offend again. It is a good and timely measure that can help the state make smarter use of its criminal justice and incarceration resources. The Times strongly recommends a "yes" vote on Proposition 47."[55]
  • Marin Independent Journal: "The goals of Proposition 47 are to reduce prison population, reduce taxpayer costs and treat offenders in a more effective way. It directs expected savings to schools and safe-neighborhood programs. The right way make [sic] sure that punishments fit the crimes is to give judges greater leeway to dole out effective sentences for crimes. That's why we reluctantly endorse Proposition 47."[56]
  • Monterey Herald: "We have our reservations — early release of some prisoners may not be a good idea and any savings seem to disappear — but the measure overall could save millions and is worth supporting."[57]
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "California cannot afford to be sending people to prison for drug possession, petty theft and other relatively low-level crimes. It’s simply not wise as a matter of fiscal prudence (with prison costs now exceeding $60,000 a year per inmate) or public safety, when resources could be better spent on crime prevention."[58]
  • San Jose Mercury News: "California voters need to muster the courage their Legislature sadly lacks by approving Proposition 47 this fall. It will bring balance to sentencing, rehabilitation and treatment programs and reduce the state's highest-in-the-nation recidivism rate."[59]
  • Santa Barbara Independent: "For way too long, prosecuting attorneys throughout California have been sending way too many people to state prison for committing nonviolent and low-level criminal offenses. This has taken a huge toll on state finances, not to mention the lives of millions of people adversely and unjustly affected."[60]

Opposition

  • The Bakersfield Californian: "Recently, the Legislature made a timid effort to revise charging and sentencing in California. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, noting his administration is scheduled to issue a comprehensive report and recommendations for reforming the system next year. Voters should reject Proposition 47 in November and give the governor a chance to recommend reforms."[61]
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "That’s the idea. But the measure is horribly drafted, for all the reasons Zimmerman cited. Heroin and cocaine as misdemeanors? Date rape drugs, too? Gun theft as a misdemeanor? Just how gullible are California voters? Proposition 47 will test the question. In the end, we think voters will see the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” for what it really is: misguided, wrong-headed public policy."[48]
  • The Modesto Bee: "Reject Prop. 47, the ‘catch-and-release’ law: This proposition has been titled The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act by proponents – a spectacular example of Orwellian “double-speak.” It is anything but safe."[62]

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
California Proposition 47 (2014)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll
10/22/2014 - 10/29/2014		 56.0%25.0%17.0%+/-2.91,537
The Field Poll
10/15/2014 - 10/28/2014		 51.0%23.0%26.0%+/-3.41,536
Public Policy Institute of California
10/12/2014 - 10/19/2014		 59.0%29.0%12.0%+/-3.51,704
Public Policy Institute of California
9/8/2014 - 9/15/2014		 62.0%25.0%13.0%+/-3.61,702
The Field Poll
6/26/2014 - 7/19/2014		 57.0%24.0%19.0%+/-2.61,535
AVERAGES 57% 25.2% 17.4% +/-3.2 1,602.8
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

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 2013, at least 504,760 valid signatures were required.

  • William Lansdowne and George Gascon submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 19, 2013.
  • A title and summary was issued by California's attorney general's office on February 14, 2014.
  • 504,760 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
  • Supporters had until July 14, 2014, to collect the required signatures. Filing sufficient signatures by that date would not have allowed the initiative to compete on the November 4, 2014, ballot. The secretary of state’s suggested signature filing deadline for the November 4, 2014, ballot was April 18, 2014.
  • On May 5 and May 6, supporters turned in an estimated 800,000 signatures.[26]
  • On June 26, 2014, the initiative was certified for the November 4, 2014, ballot and 587,806 signatures were reported as valid.[63]

Cost of signature collection

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot came to $1,847,882. That is equivalent to $3.66 per signature. The signature vendor was PCI Consultants, Inc.

Similar measures

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 47 reduced penalties. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014) - Google News

See also

2014 Measures

California

News and analysis


External links

Basic information

Support

Opposition

Additional reading


Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 NBC News, "After San Francisco shoplifting video goes viral, officials argue thefts aren't rampant," July 14, 2021
  2. ↑ Washington Post, "A ‘virtual Get-out-of-jail-free Card’," October 10, 2015
  3. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism," June 2018
  4. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Thefts rise after California reduces criminal penalties, report says," June 13, 2018
  5. ↑ Desert Sun, "GOP recall candidate Larry Elder aims to help voters ‘connect the dots’," August 2, 2021
  6. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox proposes plan on California homelessness," June 27, 2021
  7. ↑ CNN, "Republicans vying to replace Newsom in California recall attack his handling of Covid-19 in debate," August 5, 2021
  8. ↑ KRCA, "One-on-one interview with California recall candidate Ted Gaines," July 19, 2021
  9. ↑ Newsweek, "Recall Candidate John Cox Calls for Border Wall to Stop California's Drug Crisis," August 4, 2021
  10. ↑ Bartos, Bradley J. and Charis E. Kubrin. 2018. "Can We Downsize Our Prisons and Jails Without Compromising Public Safety?" Criminology & Public Policy 17 (3): 693-715.
  11. ↑ The Davis Vanguard, "Ballot Measure Seeks to Undo California’s Criminal Justice Reform," October 31, 2017
  12. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Don’t fall for this latest scare tactic on criminal justice reform, governor says," February 26, 2018
  13. ↑ Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, "AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57 Are Safely Reducing the Prison Population, but Durable Public Safety Requires Further Cuts in Corrections Spending," January 24, 2018
  14. ↑ The Orange County Register, "California’s dangerous trifecta: AB109, Prop. 57 and Prop. 47," June 8, 2018
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0044," accessed October 31, 2017
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 California General Election Official Voter Information Guide November 2014, "Text of Proposed Laws," accessed September 8, 2014
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 California General Election Official Voter Information Guide November 2014, "Prop 47 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst," accessed September 8, 2014
  18. ↑ The San Francisco Appeal, "CA Voters Will Decide On DA Gascon-Backed Plan To Reduce Sentences For Low-Level Crimes," June 27, 2014
  19. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Four ways to make black, brown, and all lives matter," January 15, 2015
  20. ↑ The Tribune, "Capitol Alert: Measure to reduce sentences for theft, drugs on California ballot," June 26, 2014
  21. ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 21.12 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  22. ↑ Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools, "Homepage," accessed June 27, 2014
  23. ↑ Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, "Prop 47: How I'm Voting On This Controversial Issue," October 8, 2014
  24. ↑ Orange County Register, "Rand Paul and B. Wayne Hughes Jr.: Republicans should back Prop. 47," October 28, 2014
  25. ↑ 25.00 25.01 25.02 25.03 25.04 25.05 25.06 25.07 25.08 25.09 25.10 25.11 25.12 25.13 25.14 25.15 25.16 25.17 25.18 25.19 25.20 25.21 25.22 25.23 25.24 25.25 25.26 25.27 25.28 25.29 25.30 25.31 25.32 25.33 25.34 25.35 25.36 25.37 25.38 25.39 25.40 25.41 25.42 25.43 Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools, "Who Supports Reform," accessed September 8, 2014
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 San Francisco Gate, "Nonviolent crimes measure collects 800,000-plus signatures," May 6, 2014
  27. ↑ KTVU, "'The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act' gets green light for ballot," June 27, 2014
  28. ↑ NBC Bay Area, "Santa Clara County DA Rosen comes out in support of Prop 47," September 5, 2014
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Los Angeles Times, "What California can learn from the red states on crime and punishment," September 16, 2014
  30. ↑ City of Pasadena City Council, "Council Meeting Recap," October 6, 2014
  31. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "National ACLU spends big for California’s Proposition 47," October 22, 2014
  32. ↑ Post-Periodical, "State Democrats Vote to Support Ballot Measures," July 14, 2014
  33. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 47 would cut penalties for 1 in 5 criminals in California," October 11, 2014
  34. ↑ Potrero Hill Democratic Club, "Endorsements for the November 4, 2014 General Election," accessed October 9, 2014
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Business Wire, "California Catholic Bishops Endorse Proposition 47 on November 2014 Ballot," September 9, 2014
  36. ↑ Bend The Arc, "California 2014 Voter Guide," accessed October 24, 2014
  37. ↑ Presente.org, "Reap What You Sow," accessed October 31, 2014
  38. ↑ The Root, "Jay Z Advocates for Prison Reform During California Concert, August 5, 2014
  39. ↑ Huffington Post, "Our Current Justice System Is Tearing Apart Families," October 29, 2014
  40. ↑ Artists for 47, "Homepage," accessed June 9, 2015
  41. ↑ Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools, "Our Reform Proposal: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014," accessed June 27, 2014
  42. ↑ Inside Bay Area, "Simply spending more on prisons is not the solution," September 9, 2013
  43. ↑ AFL-CIO, "Supporting California Proposition 47: Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014," July 31, 2014
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 University California - Hastings, "2014 General Election Voter Guide," accessed February 9, 2021
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 California Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance," accessed April 30, 2014
  46. ↑ Californians Against Proposition 47, "Homepage," accessed October 31, 2014
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Los Angeles Daily News, "Prop. 47 will make Californians less safe: Dianne Feinstein," October 15, 2014
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Prop. 47 is anything but ‘safe’ for neighborhoods and schools," September 7, 2014
  49. ↑ 49.00 49.01 49.02 49.03 49.04 49.05 49.06 49.07 49.08 49.09 49.10 49.11 49.12 49.13 49.14 49.15 49.16 49.17 49.18 49.19 49.20 49.21 49.22 49.23 49.24 49.25 49.26 49.27 49.28 49.29 49.30 49.31 49.32 49.33 49.34 49.35 49.36 49.37 49.38 49.39 49.40 49.41 49.42 Alliance for a Safer California - Vote No on Proposition 47, "Groups and Leaders Opposed to Prop 47," accessed October 12, 2014
  50. ↑ Santa Monica Mirror, "State Republicans Vote To Back Two Measures On November Ballot, Oppose Two," September 22, 2014
  51. ↑ Alliance for a Safer California - Vote No on Prop 47, "Facts," accessed September 25, 2014
  52. ↑ California Police Chiefs Association, "Proposition 47," accessed September 10, 2014
  53. ↑ National Association of Drug Court Professionals, "NADCP Opposes California’s Proposition 47," accessed October 12, 2014
  54. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote Yes on Measure BB and Prop 47," September 24, 2014
  55. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 47," October 6, 2014
  56. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ's stands on Nov. 4 state propositions," October 15, 2014
  57. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial: More recommendations on state ballot measures," September 18, 2014
  58. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Proposition 47," September 19, 2014
  59. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Prop. 47 will help California break cycle of crime," September 25, 2014
  60. ↑ Santa Barbara Independent, "Endorsements 2014," October 16, 2014
  61. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Prop. 47 about lawmakers' lack of courage," October 14, 2014
  62. ↑ Modesto Bee,"Reject Prop. 47, the ‘catch-and-release’ law," October 5, 2014 (dead link)
  63. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Signature Count for 13-0060," accessed June 27, 2014
v • e
2014 ballot measures
I&R States
BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)&oldid=8850603"