California Intervention Predicate Crimes and Treatment Court Initiative (2020)
| California Intervention Predicate Crimes and Treatment Court Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Civil and criminal trials and Law enforcement | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The California Intervention Predicate Crimes and Treatment Court Initiative (#19-0024) was not on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020.
The ballot measure would have created a special superior court, named the Specialized Benefits, Treatment, and Therapy Court, in counties with populations above 100,000. The special courts would have handled crimes defined as intervention predicates. The special courts would have determined whether a defendant's economic need, drug use or addiction, or mental health issues caused, in whole or in part, the defendant to commit the crime. The special courts would have been required to provide information and assistance to defendants and sentence them to counseling and treatment programs.[1]
Former Asm. Mike Gatto (D-43), who filed the ballot initiative, said the proposal was designed to change how the state addresses crimes related to homelessness.[1][2]
Measure design
What crimes would the ballot measure have defined as intervention predicates?
The ballot measure would have defined the following crimes as intervention predicates:[1]
| Code | Violation |
|---|---|
| Penal Code §314 | exposing one's private parts in a public place or where other persons are present to be offended or annoyed |
| Penal Code §370/§372 | acts that are injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses, an obstruction to the free use of property, or an unlawful obstruction to the free passage or use of a public space |
| Penal Code §640(d)(1) | willfully disturbing others in a system facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior |
| Penal Code §640(d)(3) | urinating or defecating in a system facility or vehicle, except in a bathroom |
| Penal Code §647(a) | engaging in lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place or exposed to public view |
| Penal Code §647(c) | accosting other persons in a public place for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms |
| Penal Code §647(e) | lodging in a building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of the space |
| Penal Code §647(f) | under the influence of intoxicating liquors, drugs, controlled substances, or toluene in a public place and in a condition that one is unable to exercise care for oneself or interferes with the free use of public streets or public ways |
| Health & Safety Code §11350(a) | possessing a controlled substance, which is a narcotic drug |
| Health & Safety Code §11354(a) | being in the same room or place where controlled substances or narcotic drugs are being unlawfully smoked or used and knowing that such activity is happening |
| Health & Safety Code §11365 | assisting the perpetration of the unlawful smoking or use of a controlled substance |
| Health & Safety Code §11377(a) | possessing a controlled substance, which is not a narcotic drug |
| Health & Safety Code §11550(a) | unlawfully under the influence of a controlled substance or narcotic drug |
What would the sentences have look liked for violating intervention predicates?
The ballot measure would have allowed the court to sentence defendants based on the court's own discretion, except in cases where the court determined that crimes were committed due to the defendant's economic need, drug use or addiction, or mental health issues. The ballot measure would have required the following sentences for crimes committed due to the defendant's economic need, drug use or addiction, or mental health issues:[1]
- Economic need: The court would have provided information and immediate assistance in securing and accessing housing, financial assistance, and welfare programs.
- Drug use or addiction: The court would have provided information and assistance with counseling and drug treatment. The court would have sentenced the defendant to the maximum allowable sentence, not to exceed 364 days, with the sentence to be served in court-approved addiction-counseling and drug-treatment program, including, when the court deems appropriate, in a program requiring confinement or jail. The defendant would have been reevaluated following the sentence and could be sentenced to additional counseling.
- Mental health issues: The court would have provided information and assistance to secure mental-health services, including prescription drug coverage. The court would have determined, with the assistance of two experts, whether the defendant is a harm to himself or herself due to mental health issues and, in those situations, appoint a guardian to make decisions related to treatment and housing. The court would have sentenced the defendant to the maximum allowable sentence, not to exceed 364 days, with the sentence to be served in a hospital or other mental health treatment facilities. The defendant would have been reevaluated following the sentence and could be sentenced to additional treatment.
Sponsors
- Former Asm. Mike Gatto (D-43) filed the ballot initiative. He said, "I believe that if our society started treated certain misdeeds as an opportunity to stage an intervention and steer someone toward needed resources, we could solve the pervasive issue of homelessness, which hasn’t responded well to purely economic solutions thus far. In other words, we must treat certain crimes as cries for help."[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Requires Arrest for Specified Offenses and, if Convicted, Detention or Intervention Programs. Initiative Statute.[5] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Requires arrest and detention for pretrial risk assessment when officer has probable cause that arrestee committed specified offenses, such as disorderly conduct and drug possession. Establishes specialized courts in counties with populations over 100,000 to determine if economic, substance abuse, or mental health issues were contributing factors in offense; if so, requires referrals to social-safety-net assistance or incarceration for drug treatment or mental health care. Amends Mental Health Services Act to utilize existing funding for such courts and programs. Establishes rules for expunging sentences for specified offenses.[5] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Increased criminal justice system costs, particularly for courts, substance use disorder treatment, and mental health treatment, which could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be funded by a shift of about $860 million in existing state revenues. Decreased funding of about $860 million for certain mental health programs. State and local governments could face ongoing cost to replace this funding.[5] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
Process in California
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2020 ballot:
- Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requiring a random sample of signatures.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Stages of this initiative
On October 15, 2019, Former Asm. Mike Gatto (D-43) filed the ballot initiative.[1] Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) released ballot language for the initiative on December 19, 2019, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures. Signatures were not filed for the ballot initiative before the deadline to appear on the 2020 ballot. The deadline to file signatures to appear on the 2022 ballot was June 16, 2020.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0024," October 15, 2019
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Does California need a homeless court? Voters could decide," October 10, 2019
- ↑ CalMatters, "To solve homelessness, Californians must treat certain crimes as cries for help," November 4, 2019
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed December 2, 2019
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | 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 |
