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

• Introduction
• Aftermath
• Text of measure
• Support
• Opposition
• Media editorials
• Path to the ballot

Proposition 47 Type Initiative Origin Citizens Topic Trials Status Approved a

2014 propositions June 3 Proposition 41a Proposition 42a November 4 Proposition 1a Proposition 2a Proposition 45d Proposition 46d Proposition 47a Proposition 48d Donations • Vendors Endorsements • Full text Ballot titles • Fiscal impact Local measures

California Proposition 47, the Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative, was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The measure was approved.

HIGHLIGHTS

Nonviolent, nonserious crimes were reduced to misdemeanors.

As jail population numbers fell, estimated state savings grew by millions.

Multiple court challenges stemmed from the initiative's passage.

Introduction

The initiative reduces the classification of most "nonserious and nonviolent property and drug crimes" from a felony to a misdemeanor.

What did the measure do?

The initiative:

• Classified “non-serious, nonviolent crimes" as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant has prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes.
• Permited re-sentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduces to misdemeanors. Under Proposition 47, 10,000 inmates were eligible for resentencing, according to Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice.
• Required a “thorough 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:

• 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.

Who supported the measure?

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

Aftermath

Effects

Following Proposition 47's approval in November 2014, inmate populations in prisons began to fall across California. In Los Angeles, which had the country's largest jail system, the inmate population fell from 18,601 in November 2014 to 17,285 in January 2015. According to Jody Sharp, a commander with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, narcotics arrests fell one-third and bookings fell by a quarter in January 2015 relative to the previous year.

A February 2015 report from the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office claimed that although Gov. Jerry Brown's budget assumed a reduction of 1,900 inmates in 2015-16 due to Proposition 47, this was likely an underestimation of the measure’s effects. The report estimated that state savings would range from $100 million to $200 million beginning in the 2016-17 fiscal year. The governor reduced his proposed annual budget by $73 million and cut the use of private prison beds in half because of earlier-than-expected reductions from Proposition 47.

As a result of jail population reductions from the proposition, Los Angeles County was one of several counties that were able to end "early release," a practice implemented in response to realignment. The Board of State and Community Corrections also credited the measure for a decreased early release trend statewide. In other counties, such as Alameda County and Orange County, sheriffs closed parts of jails after reductions. Orange County was able to rent out empty jail beds to the federal government for immigration detainees. In San Joaquin County, a reduction in crowding allowed staff to focus more on rehabilitative programs in the county jail.

Garrick Byers, President of the California Public Defenders Association, viewed Proposition 47 as working. He said, "It reduced the punishment for many crimes from an excessive punishment to a punishment that's more in line with what the crime is. They're still getting a criminal punishment, nobody's getting off free. But it is more commonly probation, more commonly a lower lock-up time, more commonly a punishment that is going to result in rehabilitation."

U.S. Sen. and 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul (R) praised Proposition 47 in June 2015. He said, "California’s actually done some good things. Proposition 47 about a year ago or six months ago took some of the minor drug felonies and made them misdemeanors and, from my understanding, you have more room in your prisons now for violent criminals. They’re not getting out early."

Others viewed Proposition 47 as being short-sighted. Los Angeles City Councilman and former LAPD chief Bernard Parks noted that while drug-related arrests fell, thefts and residential burglaries rose. He stated, "But what they failed to consider is that people who are using drugs are also committing other crimes. How do they stay heroin users? How do they support their habit? … People don't want to understand that I can't be a crack addict and have a profession. Nobody's giving me drugs. I rob and burglarize and steal."

KCRA looked into whether inmates released under Proposition 47 ended up back in custody. The news site noted the following on March 16, 2015:

• In Placer County, 28 inmates have been released since November 2014 and four ended up back in custody. Thus, 14 percent of those released ended up back in custody.
• In Stanislaus County, 127 inmates have been released and 12 ended up back in custody. That is a nine percent return rate.
• In Sacramento County, 42 inmates have been released and 25 are back in custody. In other words, 60 percent ended up back in custody.
• The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has released 3,068 inmates since November and 14 have ended up back in the system. That is a return rate of .005 percent.

As of mid-August 2015, 4,347 prisoners were released from state prisons under Proposition 47.

In early December 2015, Los Angeles County officials voted to establish two task forces designed to help residents affected by Proposition 47. One task force was set up to strategize about how to reach out to convicted residents who could change their charges. The other task force was designed to consider how to connect ex-offenders with job training programs. Los Angeles County Public Defender Ron Brown said his office facilitated about 16,700 petitions that successfully reduced individuals' charges under the measure since it passed in 2014.

Proposed changes

During the California Legislature's 2015 legislative session, a number of politicians introduced bills to amend or make changes related to Proposition 47. If any of these bills that directly changed the provisions enacted by Prop. 47 had passed and been signed by the governor, the changes would have had to go on a 2016 ballot for constituents to decide. Some of the proposed changes included:

• Senate Bill 333 and Assembly Bill 46 was designed to allow felony charges to be filed against suspects accused of having certain date-rape drugs. Proposition 47 reduced the personal use of most illegal drugs to misdemeanors.
  • SB 333 was approved in both the senate and the assembly, but it was vetoed by the governor, and the legislature did not overturn the veto. AB 46 did not pass either branch of the legislature.
• Assembly Bill 390 was designed to require persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to provide DNA samples. California law only requires individuals convicted of felonies to provide DNA samples. The bill was approved in the assembly, but it died in a senate committee. Proposition 47 reduced a number of felonies to misdemeanors. The California General Assembly passed AB 390 on June 2, 2015.
• Assembly Bill 150 was designed to make stealing a gun a felony crime. Proposition 47 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. This bill died in committee.
• Assembly Bill 1104 and Assembly Bill 539 were designed to allow the issuance of search warrants for misdemeanor crimes that were previously classified as felonies before Proposition 47's passage. These bills were approved and signed by the governor. These bills did not amend the specific provisions added by Prop. 47 and, therefore, did not need to go before voters to be enacted.

Challenges to changes

Steve Boilard from the Center for California Studies claimed that by introducing such bills, lawmakers are “trying to second guess what the voters were thinking when they approved this legislation.”

Californians for Safety and Justice, a pro-Proposition 47 crime victims organization, rallied in support of the measure. People identifying as crime victims, and who were associated with the organization, lobbied the California Legislature against tampering with the initiative. Barry Krisberg, a Distinguished Senior Fellow at UC-Berkeley, said he expected groups like Californians for Safety and Justice to have little impact on legislators' decisions because "politicians are still pretty frightened about crossing the law enforcement unions."

Court challenges

The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office disagreed over how DNA was to be treated after a conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor after the fact. Proposition 47 did not address whether DNA was to stay in the database or be expunged. While the Public Defender's Office argued that collecting DNA invades a person's privacy and should be strictly governed, the district attorney's office argued that clearing out DNA samples goes against the wishes and intent of voters who passed the proposition and possibly inhibits law enforcement from solving some crimes. The district attorney's office hoped the California Supreme Court can resolve the issue.

Election results

California Proposition 47
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		4,238,156	59.61%
No		2,871,943	40.39%

Election results via: California Secretary of State

Text of measure

See also: Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2014 ballot propositions

Ballot title:

Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Official summary: The long-form summary read:

“

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.

”

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.

”

Support

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

Supporters

See also: A full list of supporters

Officials

• Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
• Sen. Loni Hancock (D-9)
• Sen. Mark Leno (D-11)
• Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
• Rep. Nancy Skinner (D-15)
• San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón (D)
• Mary Jane Burke, Marin County Superintendent of Schools
• Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen

Former officials

• Newt Gingrich (R), former Speaker of the US House of Representatives
• William Lansdowne, former San Diego Police Chief

Municipalities

• City of Pasadena

Organizations

• American Civil Liberties Union
• California Democratic Party
• Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
• Victims/Survivors Network of Los Angeles
• Victims/Survivors Network of San Diego
• Life After Uncivil Ruthless Acts (LAURA)
• A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)
• Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
• American Civil Liberties Union of California
• California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, Inc.
• Children's Defense Fund of California
• Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
• Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches
• NAACP – San Diego Branch
• NAACP – San Jose Branch
• PICO California
• Open Society Policy Center
• Potrero Hill Democratic Club
• Progressive Christians Uniting
• The League of Women Voters of California
• The Sentencing Project
• The Women's Foundation
• AFL-CIO
• AFSCME
• SEIU California
• California Federation of Teachers
• California Labor Federation
• California Teachers Association
• California Catholic Conference of Bishops
• Bend The Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
• Presente.org

An ad featuring the group Artists for 47.

Individuals

• B. Wayne Hughes Jr., businessman and philanthropist
• Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix
• Jay Z
• Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow
• Olivia Wilde
• Brad Pitt
• John Legend
• Cameron Diaz
• Aloe Blacc
• Andrian Grenier
• Viola Davis
• Tim Robbins
• Kimora Lee Simmons
• Demi Moore
• Russell Simmons
• Russell Brand
• Robin Wright
• Michael Moore

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:

“

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.

”

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:

“

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.

”

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:

“

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.

”

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

“

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.

”

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

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón (D) argued:

“

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.

”

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

“

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.

”

Donors

Total campaign cash as of December 31, 2014
Support:	$10,976,491
Opposition:	$551,800

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

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:

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

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

Opponents

Officials

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

Organizations

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

Arguments against

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) argued:

“

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.

”

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:

“

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.

”

The California Police Chiefs Association made the following arguments against the initiative: {{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:

“

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.

”

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals said:

“

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.

”

Donors

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

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:

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."
• 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."
• 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."
• 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."
• 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."
• 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."
• 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."

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."
• 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."
• 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."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

California Proposition 47 (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of Error	Sample Size
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll 10/22/2014 - 10/29/2014	56.0%	25.0%	17.0%	+/-2.9	1,537
The Field Poll 10/15/2014 - 10/28/2014	51.0%	23.0%	26.0%	+/-3.4	1,536
Public Policy Institute of California 10/12/2014 - 10/19/2014	59.0%	29.0%	12.0%	+/-3.5	1,704
Public Policy Institute of California 9/8/2014 - 9/15/2014	62.0%	25.0%	13.0%	+/-3.6	1,702
The Field Poll 6/26/2014 - 7/19/2014	57.0%	24.0%	19.0%	+/-2.6	1,535
AVERAGES	57%	25.2%	17.4%	+/-3.2	1,602.8
Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. 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

• 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.
• On June 26, 2014, the initiative was certified for the November 4, 2014, ballot and 587,806 signatures were reported as valid.

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

• California Proposition 36, Changes in the "Three Strikes" Law (2012) a

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; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.

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

• Loading...

See also

Suggest a link

• California 2014 ballot propositions
• 2014 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in California

External links

Basic information

• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 13-0060
• League of Women Voters Guide to Proposition 47
• Voter's Edge Guide to Proposition 47

Support

• Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools
• Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Facebook

Opposition

• Californians Against Proposition 47
• Californians Against Proposition 47 Facebook

Additional reading

• Washington Post, "California voters seem ready to end the state’s ‘tough on crime’ era," October 31, 2014
• New York Times, "California Voters to Decide on Sending Fewer Criminals to Prison," October 5, 2014