San Francisco's Proposition 36 Felony Filings Among State's Lowest, Judicial Resistance Cited

San Francisco is experiencing a significant lag in the implementation of Proposition 36, a statewide measure designed to impose stiffer penalties for repeat drug and theft offenses and mandate treatment, with local judges reportedly rejecting filings under its guidelines. According to a social media post by "T Wolf 🌁," the slow progress is directly attributable to the judiciary, stating, "The lag in San Francisco on Prop 36 implementation is due to SF judges almost exclusively rejecting any filings in court under Prop 36 guidelines. The DA has little control over that. We need new judges." This sentiment highlights a growing frustration with the measure's effectiveness in the city.

Proposition 36, overwhelmingly approved by California voters in November 2024, aimed to reverse parts of the 2014 Proposition 47 by allowing felony charges for certain drug and theft crimes and introducing a "treatment-mandated felony" option. This provision offers individuals with two or more prior drug convictions a choice between behavioral health treatment or up to three years in jail or prison, with charges dismissed upon treatment completion. The law sought to address rising concerns over retail theft and drug-related issues across the state.

Data from the early months of Proposition 36 implementation reveal San Francisco has one of the lowest rates of felony filings under the new law, with approximately 2 cases per 100,000 residents. This contrasts sharply with counties like Kern and Orange, which reported 24 and 19 filings per 100,000 residents, respectively. Reports indicate that San Francisco judges have been criticized for allowing defendants to plead to lesser charges or opt for probation, citing procedural complexities and the lack of immediate treatment bed availability.

The effectiveness of Proposition 36 statewide has also been questioned, with a recent study showing that few defendants are successfully entering the promised treatment programs. While roughly 9,000 people were charged with a treatment-mandated felony in the first six months, only 1,290 elected treatment, and a mere 25 completed it. This issue is compounded by the lack of dedicated funding for treatment services, a concern raised by Governor Gavin Newsom, who opposed the measure due to its unfunded mandate.

Officials and public defenders across California have pointed to the absence of robust funding for behavioral health services as a major impediment to the law's success. State legislators have requested hundreds of millions annually to support implementation, with the state approving a one-time allocation of $100 million and additional grant funding. However, many argue that these funds are insufficient to scale up the necessary treatment infrastructure, impacting judicial decisions and the overall intent of the proposition.