California Democrats try to change the subject from shoplifting to drugs

Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to defeat a tough-on-crime ballot initiative by convincing voters it would mark a return to the drug war launched by Richard Nixon.

Newsom, one of the few prominent Democrats speaking out against the Proposition 36 initiative, calls it a “drug policy reform that takes us back decades.” Civil rights groups refer to the measure as the “War on Drugs 2.0.”

“We did that,” said No on Prop 36 campaign spokesperson Anthony York, a former top aide to Newsom. “Voters decided they didn’t like it, and the courts decided they didn’t like it.”

At a moment when even many Democratic politicians and left-of-center voters are increasingly focused on fighting crime, Newsom is insisting that the initiative goes too far in returning to an era when American law enforcement emphasized imprisonment over rehabilitation. And while he's not actively campaigning to defeat it, he is using strong language to advocate against it.

Prop 36, which would reclassify certain theft and drug misdemeanors as felonies, was developed by a group of district attorneys with financial backing from retail giants like Home Depot, Walmart and Target. They sold the initiative as the only way to address the scourge of shoplifting in California. They blamed the decadeold Proposition 47, which relaxed penalties for low level crimes and invested millions into mental health and drug treatment programs, for giving thieves carte blanche to steal with little fear of reprisal.

Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders angled to neutralize businesses’ shoplifting concerns by enacting a slate of legislation that gives prosecutors new tools to pursue organized-theft rings. Some of the policies go beyond even what Prop 36 would accomplish, including allowing officers to arrest shoplifters for probable cause, protecting businesses that report repeated crimes and making a state retail theft task force permanent.

On Thursday, Newsom signed the last of those bills, which adds sentencing enhancements for stolen or damaged property. Enactment of the bill package, according to York, prompted a “policy realization” that the No on 36 campaign could characterize the theft provisions as obsolete and focus entirely on the impact the initiative would have on drug policy. It is a message pivot that the initiative’s highest-profile opponent has embraced.

“They're lying to you,” Newsom said last month of Prop 36’s proponents. “That initiative has nothing to do with retail theft. That initiative is about going back to the 1980s and the War on Drugs.”

War on war

In June of 1971, President Richard Nixon stood before reporters at the White House and declared narcotics “public enemy number one.” He asked for millions from Congress, created new drug enforcement agencies and vowed what he called an “all out offensive” on the drug epidemic.

In California, police forces were bolstered by an infusion of federal money that funded ongoing drug raids in Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. The three-strikes-and-you’re out Prop 184 passed with overwhelming voter support in 1994, mandating sentences of 25 years to life for people with prior felony convictions (including for non-violent drug offenses).

Over the following years, the war on drugs became the guiding principle of American law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels, with the introduction of tough sentences for possession and distribution. But in California, it was also soundly defeated in a decade of reforms culminating in Prop 47.

A strategy that links the initiative to policies that voters rejected could have bipartisan appeal, argues Bay Area pollster Dave Metz, who frequently polls on ballot measures but is not working on the Prop 36 race. A recent UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies poll showed more than one-fifth of likely voters undecided, with the largest shares from politically unaffiliated and young voters. (The survey measured support from 56 percent of likely voters.)

“Polling shows the public has a deeply negative view of the war on drugs,” Metz said. “They think that suite of policies did next to nothing to address problematic drug use.”

Those working to defeat Prop 36 have taken every opportunity to change the subject away from theft toward the impact that the initiative would have on drug policy. The measure would make certain types of drug possession a felony and would mandate that those convicted would have to complete a drug-treatment program, rather than just start one, to avoid jail time.

Prop 36’s passage would represent a departure from a long stretch over which California voters have generally retreated from their previously hard line on drug policy, legalizing once-controlled substances and reducing penalties for nonviolent offenses involving others. The Legislature has followed voters' lead by reducing harsh sentencing for drug crimes and repealing automatic sentencing enhancements.

The primary opposition committee was formed in July after Newsom failed to strike a compromise with the initiative’s backers that would have removed Prop 36 from the ballot. The No on 36 campaign is led by Prop 47 co-author Lenore Anderson, president of the Alliance for Safety and Justice, and under the day-to-day direction of Newsom allies like one-time deputy chief of staff Lindsey Cobia, his campaign pollster David Binder and former top spokesperson York.

Their campaign remains a relatively threadbare effort, with just $1.7 million in contributions as it has struggled to reassemble the fundraising coalition of institutional philanthropies and major progressive donors who together raised $11 million to pass Prop 47 in 2014. No on 36 officials concede they have few resources to amplify their new chosen message.

“Prop 36 will reignite the failed war on drugs, wasting billions on jails and prisons, and slashing crucial funding for crime prevention, treatment, victims, and rehabilitation,” begins the No on 36 campaign’s first substantive words to voters in the official voter guide. “That will mean more crime, not less.”

Return to yesterday

Prop 36’s backers dismiss the governor’s claim that their initiative represents a backwards-looking reversion on drug policy.

“I think it's just political rhetoric, he's just pounding the table to try to convince people that it’s some return to yesterday,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, one of the prosecutors who helped draft the initiative

Yet Reisig’s Yes on 36 campaign has, too, adjusted its messaging to reflect the new dynamics. On Tuesday, the campaign held a news conference in Sacramento focused heavily on how the measure will treat drug addiction. Recent press releases have highlighted how the initiative would help people “begin new lives” through treatment. District attorneys argue strengthened penalties add prosecutorial teeth to drug-treatment jail diversion programs, and point to falling participation in drug courts as proof change is necessary.

“It’s fair to say that we got more aggressive about messaging on the drug piece to make sure the truth about Prop 36 is being heard,” said Reisig, the Yolo prosecutor. “They know it's off-target, it sounds ominous and scary, but that's not what Prop 36 is.”

Prop 36 has not changed since it was first introduced a year ago, but both sides acknowledge the environment in which voters will consider it has. After ticking up in the years following 2020, California property-crime rates decreased in 2023. (Statistics for 2024 are not yet available.) According to the Governor’s Office , California state police increased arrests for organized retail theft by 167 percent over the first five months of 2024. Viral videos of brazen shoplifting in CVS and Walgreens, meanwhile, circulate less frequently.

"First proponents billed this initiative as a retail theft and public safety initiative, but they’ve now changed their tune and are framing it as a drug treatment initiative,” said Anne Irwin, the founder of Smart Justice California, a consortium representing major donors who helped bankroll past reform efforts and are now funding the No on 36 campaign.

The No on 36 campaign admits it will struggle to make sure that distinction reaches voters by the time mail ballots go out in less than a month.

“If we’re not going to outspend them, we’re going to have to outwork them,” York said. “We’re in a race against time to get this retail stuff out of the picture.”