The people of California have voted happen Proposition 36, a tougher-on-crime ballot initiative that would impose tougher penalties for retail theft, property crimes and drug crimes.

It will reverse parts of a landmark 2014 law that downgraded several nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors to reduce the state’s prison population and provide money for drug treatment and resources for crime victims. While some viewed the original law, known as Proposition 47, as a breakthrough in criminal justice reform, others saw it as a major cause of property crime, homelessness and drug abuse.

Proposition 36 — which has been supported by many law enforcement and business groups, conservative lawmakers and some Democratic mayors, including London Breed of San Francisco and Matt Mahan of San Jose — promises to address two of the state’s most visible problems, homelessness and fentanyl addiction, through condemnation address dealers to longer prison sentences and create a Court-ordered drug treatment system for people struggling with addiction.

Kamala Harris declined to tell reporters how she voted on the proposal, arguing that she did not want her vote to potentially tip the balance so close to the election.

The state’s Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) estimates that Prop 36 will cost the state tens of millions of dollars, increase California’s prison population, and increase the workload of court employees and officers.

However, supporters argued that this will be the case will be money well spent and that the passage of Prop 36 will not result in a complete rollback of the criminal justice reforms that California has implemented over the last decade.

“Voters recognize that Prop 36 is a common-sense measure and that it is the first step toward ending the retail thefts that make shopping miserable,” said Mike Gatto, a Democratic former Los Angeles state representative and Prop 36 supporter.

Under Prop 36, people convicted of shoplifting will now face more frequent charges of crimes that were previously classified as misdemeanors. Judges must now also warn fentanyl dealers that they can be charged with murder if someone dies from a drug they supplied. And people arrested for drug possession can now be charged with a crime that can be resolved by completing a mental health or drug treatment program instead of jail or prison.

Prop 47, the original policy sought to change, came into effect 20 years after the passage of state and federal “tough on crime” laws – California’s infamous “three strikes” policy, which carries an automatic minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison Death of a person is a third offense and the Federal Crimes Act of 1994, which increased penalties and provided subsidies for states to build more prisons.

The number of prison inmates in California had already increased in 1994: in 1985, around 50,000 people were incarcerated there, and in 1994, according to the LAO, there were already more than 120,000. Prison populations peaked at 173,000 in 2006, forcing then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare a state of emergency due to overcrowding.

The passage of Prop 47 positioned California as a forward-thinking state and a leader in criminal justice reform. But it wasn’t universally popular with law enforcement and local officials. Donald Trump blamed Prop 47 for openly allowing people to steal from retail stores and use hard drugs without facing consequences. Nevertheless, Prop 47 prevailed despite repeated attempts to undermine it.

However, the pandemic, the backlash against racial justice protests following the killing of George Floyd, an increase in homicides, shootings and viral videos of people breaking into cars and removing goods from shelves led to a sea change in opinion about reforms that led to a Reducing sentences led to and prioritized investment in community services over policing.

Although there were fewer property crimes in California last year than in 2014, when Prop 47 was passed, the recent increased visibility of local businesses being robbed and the closure of high-profile restaurant chains in Oakland kept the “doom loop” narrative perpetuated Life, said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, a nonprofit criminal justice reform and victim advocacy organization.

“There is a lot of scaremongering. Law enforcement and 36 advocates have used the media to their advantage,” she said. “This doom loop narrative of ‘chaos reigns’ and fuels fear and frustration in the public.

“When you talk to voters, people are desperate for a solution. They want people to get help,” Hollins continued. “Proponents really played on the knowledge that people are tired and frustrated and manipulated them into believing that nothing can be done unless we punish them into compliance.”

In the weeks leading up to the election, Hollins, along with other social justice groups, held press conferences and door-knocking campaigns to dispel what they said were false promises from Prop 36 supporters and educate people about the risks of funding drug treatment and Behavioral Health Programs.

Since its passage, Prop 47 has freed up $800 million that would have gone toward the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating an individual and instead went to counties and individual behavioral health and drug treatment programs.

“We expect cuts in the millions. This will have a devastating impact on our communities. This will devastate and decimate something Is there,” said Kevin Cosney, deputy director and co-founder of the California Black Power Network, another nonprofit that fought Prop 36. “We share the concern that our communities are not perfect. But it wasn’t for lack of responsibility; it was a lack of resources, a lack of mental health.”

But Gatto, the former assembly member, argues that convicting and incarcerating more fentanyl dealers and those involved in retail theft is worth the loss of funding, which he says can be offset by funds provided by the Legislature.

“The idea that it’s a zero-sum game is wrong,” he said. “If the Legislature wants to provide money for these excellent programs, we can and should.”

Read more of the Guardian’s coverage of the 2024 US election