Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (2016)
| California Proposition 57 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Civil and criminal trials | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Amendment & Statute | Origin Citizens |
The California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, also known as Proposition 57, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. It was approved.
| A "yes" vote supported increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. |
| A "no" vote opposed this measure increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and favored keeping the current system of having prosecutors decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. |
Election results
| Proposition 57 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 8,790,723 | 64.46% | ||
| No | 4,847,354 | 35.54% | ||
- Election results from California Secretary of State
Aftermath
ACSOL v. Department of Corrections
The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) challenged regulations adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that were designed to implement Proposition 57. ACSOL filed the lawsuit in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Proposition 57 stated that any person convicted of a "nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary offense." CDCR implemented a regulation that excluded persons convicted of sexual offenses from the definition of nonviolent offender.[1] Three proponents, including Gov. Brown (D), signed a statement saying that Proposition 57 did not "change the federal court order that excludes sex offenders, as defined in Penal Code 290, from parole."
ACSOL argued that CDCR's regulation violated Proposition 57, as the initiative did not define nonviolent felony offense and excluding sex offenders was against voters' intent. On February 8, 2018, Judge Allen Sumner agreed with ACSOL, stating that "the challenged regulations are overbroad and must be set aside." He said the court was not directing the CDCR to adopt any particular replacement regulation, but rather "adopt new regulations defining the term 'nonviolent felony offense' consistent with this ruling."[1] On February 13, 2020, the California Third District Court of Appeal upheld the superior court's ruling.
On December 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling, which stated that Proposition 57 contained "no indication that the voters intended to allow the department to create a wholesale exclusion from parole consideration based on an inmate’s sex offense convictions when the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent felony." Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye noted that Proposition 57 entitled sex offenders convicted of crimes considered non-violent to parole hearings, but did "not require the release on parole of any inmate. The evaluation of an inmate’s suitability for parole and the processes involved in conducting that evaluation remain squarely within the purview of the Department and the Board of Parole Hearings."[2][3]
Janice Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, said the ruling could allow more than half of the 20,000 sex offenders sentenced in California to apply for early parole.[4] The state Supreme Court placed the estimated number of eligible sex offenders at 4,400. Dana Simas, a spokesperson for the Corrections Department, stated that the ruling "does not mean that sex offenders will automatically be released to the community."
People v. Superior Court of Riverside
Pablo Ullisses Lara, Jr. was charged in criminal adult court with sex crimes allegedly committed in 2014 and 2015, when Lara was 14 and 15 years old. The Riverside County District Attorney charged Lara as an adult. Proposition 21, which voters approved in 2000, was in effect at the time and allowed prosecutors to file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court.[5]
Proposition 57, passed 16 years later in 2016, prohibited prosecutors from filing charges against juvenile offenders in adult court. Rather, Proposition 57 required judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether a case involving a juvenile offender belongs in juvenile court or adult criminal court.[5]
On February 1, 2018, the California Supreme Court decided that Proposition 57's juvenile offenders provision applied to all juvenile offenders whose judgments were not yet final, including convictions pending appeal, when the initiative was enacted. In other words, cases that were already filed against juvenile offenders in adult courts but had not yet concluded could be transferred to juvenile courts under Proposition 57.[5]
John Hall, a spokesperson for the Riverside County District Attorney, said the office would implement the court order and that prosecutors "appreciate that this issue has been clarified moving forward." Donald Ostertag, a Riverside County deputy district attorney, estimated that more than 1,000 cases could be affected by the ruling.[6]
Overview
Criminal justice in California
In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons were overcrowded and violated the Eighth Amendment. The state was ordered to reduce its prison population. Prison numbers dropped after voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014, which reduced certain nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors and gave more inmates a higher chance for parole consideration. Proposition 57 was also designed to lower prison population numbers.[7]
Changes to state law
Proposition 57 increased parole chances for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and gave them more opportunities to earn credits for good behavior. It also allowed judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.[8]
State of the ballot measure campaigns
Californians for Public Safety and Rehabilitation, the campaign supporting Proposition 57, outraised opponents 10 to one. Supporters received $12.6 million, while No on 57 raised $1.8 million. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) was a supporter of the measure, and his ballot measure committee was responsible for 28 percent of the "Yes" campaign’s contributions. The California Democratic Party favored Proposition 57, and the California Republican Party opposed it. Prior to the election, polls indicated that around 64 percent of voters supported the initiative.
Initiative design
Inmate releases
The measure was designed to make individuals convicted of nonviolent felony crimes who served full sentences for their primary offense and passed screening for public security eligible for parole. That made about 7,000 inmates immediately eligible, according to The Associated Press.[9]
Prison numbers dropped after California voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014, which reduced certain nonviolent property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and gave more inmates a higher chance for parole consideration. Proposition 57 was partly another response to the 2009 federal order mandating that California reduce its prison population numbers.[7]
Additionally, Proposition 57 allowed inmates to earn credits for good behavior and educational or rehabilitative achievements. "Its essence is to provide an incentive," said Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who spearheaded the campaign.[8][7] The measure provided for inmates to use credits to reduce time spent in prison.
Number of inmates affected
Using numbers from early 2016, there were about 25,000 nonviolent state felons that could seek early release and parole under Proposition 57.[10]
Juvenile trial changes
The measure was designed to make judges, rather than prosecutors, decide whether to try juveniles as young as 14 years old in adult court. Prosecutors were given the right to directly file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court when voters approved Proposition 21 in 2000.[7]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for this measure was as follows:[11]
| “ |
Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.[12] |
” |
Ballot summary
The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[13]
| “ |
|
” |
The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[13]
| “ |
Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as adult. Fiscal Impact: Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation. Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.[12] |
” |
The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 57 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement for this initiative was:[11][13]
| “ |
|
” |
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.
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
Constitutional changes
Proposition 57 added a Section 32 to Article I of the California Constitution to read as follows:[13]
SEC. 32. (a) The following provisions are hereby enacted to enhance public safety, improve rehabilitation, and avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order, notwithstanding anything in this article or any other provision of law: (1) Parole Consideration: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense. (A) For purposes of this section only, the full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence. (2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. (b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.[12]
Background
In 2009, the federal government ordered California to reduce its prison population. California was ordered again to reduce its prison population in 2011. The United States Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons were overcrowded and violated the Eighth Amendment. Prison numbers dropped after California voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014, which reduced certain nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors and gave more inmates a higher chance for parole consideration. Proposition 57 was also designed to lower prison population numbers.[7]
Early in Brown's career as governor, he signed a bill that provided fixed penalties for many serious crimes and felonies, removing the option of parole for inmates convicted of such crimes. Brown said that Proposition 57 was designed to remove some of the harmful side effects of that bill. Brown stated, “One of the key unintended consequences was the removal of incentives for inmates to improve themselves, to refrain from gang activity, using narcotics, otherwise misbehaving. Nothing that would give them the reward of turning their life around.”[10]
Support
Californians for Public Safety and Rehabilitation, also known as Yes on 57, led the campaign in support of Proposition 57.[14] The measure was developed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D).
Supporters
Officials
Former officials
- U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)[9]
- Superior Court Judge George Eskin[15]
Parties
- California Democratic Party[15]
- Libertarian Party of California[16]
- Green Party of California[17]
- California Peace and Freedom Party[18]
- Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[19]
- Los Angeles County Democratic Party
- Santa Monica Democratic Club[20]
Organizations
- California State Law Enforcement Association[15]
- Catholic Bishops of California
- Chief Probation Officers of California
- Crime Survivors for Safety & Justice
- League of Women Voters of California
- Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
- State Building and Construction Trades Council
- California Environmental Justice Alliance Action[21]
- AltaMed Action Fund State PAC
Unions
- California Faculty Association
- California Federation of Teachers
- SEIU State Council
- State Building and Construction Trades Council
- California Nurses Association[22]
- California Labor Federation[23]
Individuals
- Tom Steyer[24]
- Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[25]
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 57:[13]
- The proposition would provide a sustainable way to reduce California's overcrowded prison population while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates.
- The proposition would still keep dangerous offenders in prison.
- The proposition would save taxpayers millions of dollars.
- The proposition would be better than the status quo because it addresses evidence-based rehabilitation for juveniles and adults.
Official arguments
Gov. Jerry Brown (D), Mark Bonini, president of the Chief Probation Officers of California, and Dionne Wilson, the widow of a police officer killed in the line of duty, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 57 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[13]
VOTE YES on PROPOSITION 57 California public safety leaders and victims of crime support Proposition 57 — the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 — because Prop 57 focuses resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates and saving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Over the last several decades, California's prison population exploded by 500% and prison spending ballooned to more than $10 billion every year. Meanwhile, too few inmates were rehabilitated and most re-offended after release. Overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions led the U.S. Supreme Court to order the state to reduce its prison population. Now, without a common sense, long-term solution, we will continue to waste billions and risk a court-ordered release of dangerous prisoners. This is an unacceptable outcome that puts Californians in danger — and this is why we need Prop 57. Prop 57 is straightforward — here's what it does:
We know what works. Evidence shows that the more inmates are rehabilitated, the less likely they are to re-offend. Further evidence shows that minors who remain under juvenile court supervision are less likely to commit new crimes. Prop 57 focuses on evidence-based rehabilitation and allows a juvenile court judge to decide whether or not a minor should be prosecuted as an adult. No one is automatically released, or entitled to release from prison, under Prop 57.
And as the California Supreme Court clearly stated: parole eligibility in Prop 57 applies "only to prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies." Prop 57 is long overdue. Prop 57 focuses our system on evidence-based rehabilitation for juveniles and adults because it is better for public safety than our current system. Prop 57 saves tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Prop 57 keeps the most dangerous criminals behind bars. VOTE YES on Prop 57 www.Vote4Prop57.com |
Opposition
Stop Early Release of Violent Criminals (SERVC), also known as No on 57, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 57.[26]
Opponents
Officials
- U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)[27]
- U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-46)[28]
- Mayor Kevin Faulconer (R), San Diego[29]
- Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-5)
- Sen. Andy Vidak (R-14)[9]
- Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42)
- Asm. Katcho Achadjian (R-35)
- Asm. Travis Allen (R-72)
- Asm. Catharine Baker (R-16)
- Asm. Frank Bigelow (R-5)
- Asm. Bill Brough (R-73)
- Asm. Ling-Ling Chang (R-55)
- Asm. Rocky Chavez (R-76)
- Asm. Brian Dahle (R-1)
- Asm. Beth Gaines (R-6)
- Asm. James Gallagher (R-3)
- Asm. Shannon Grove (R-34)
- Asm. David Hadley (R-66)
- Asm. Matthew Harper (R-74)
- Asm. Brian Jones (R-71)
- Asm. Young Kim (R-65)
- Asm. Devon Mathis (R-26)
- Asm. Brian Maienschein (R-77)
- Asm. Melissa Melendez (R-67)
- Asm. Jim Patterson (R-23)
- Asm. Tom Lackey (R-36)
- Asm. Eric Linder (R-60)
- Asm. Jay Obernolte (R-33)
- Asm. Kristin Olsen (R-12)
- Asm. Devon Mathis (R-26)
- Asm. Marc Steinorth (R-40)
- Asm. Don Wagner (R-68)
- Asm. Marie Waldron (R-75)
- Asm. Scott Wilk (R-38)
Parties
Organizations
- Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs[29]
- Association of Orange County Deputy District Attorneys – Civic Action Committee
- Asian American Prosecutors Association
- Atascadero Police Officers Association[31]
- Butte County Deputy District Attorneys Association
- California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
- California District Attorneys Association
- California Homeowners Association
- California Peace Officers’ Association
- California Police Chiefs Association
- Clovis Police Officers’ Association
- Contra Costa County District Attorneys’ Association
- Crime Survivors
- Crime Victims United
- Davis Police Officers’ Association
- Kern County Prosecutors’ Association
- Pismo Beach Police Officers Association
- Sacramento Chapter of Parents of Murdered Children
- Sacramento County Deputy District Attorneys’ Association
- Sacramento Farm Bureau
- San Francisco Police Officers’ Association
- Santa Barbara County Deputy District Attorneys’ Association
- SLO Police Officers Association
- Sonoma County Prosecutors’ Association
- Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement
- UC Davis Police Officers Association
- West Sacramento Police Officers’ Association
- Winters Police Officers’ Association
- Woodland Police Officers’ Association
- Yolo County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
- Yolo County Deputy District Attorneys’ Association
Law enforcement
District attorneys
County sheriffs
Police chiefs
|
Arguments
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 57:[13]
- The proposition was poorly drafted and would allow criminals convicted of crimes like rape, lewd acts against a child, and human trafficking to be released early from prison.
- The proposition would allow career criminals to be treated as first offenders.
- The proposition would overturn provisions of victims' rights legislation like Marsy's Law, "three strikes," Victim's Bill of Rights, and the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act
- The proposition would force victims to relive their experience more often with more parole hearings.
- The proposition could result in higher crime rates.
- The proposition would place the new privileges for criminals in the California Constitution, making it more difficult for the legislature to change the language if necessary.
Official arguments
Martin Halloran, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, George Hofstetter, president of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and Stephen Wagstaffe, president of the California District Attorneys Association, wrote the official argument in opposition to Proposition 57 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[13]
Proposition 57 will allow criminals convicted of RAPE, LEWD ACTS AGAINST A CHILD, GANG GUN CRIMES and HUMAN TRAFFICKING to be released early from prison. That's why Proposition 57 is OPPOSED by California Law Enforcement — District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Police, Courtroom Prosecutors, Crime Victims and local community leaders. Here are the facts: The authors of Proposition 57 claim it only applies to "non-violent" crimes, but their poorly drafted measure deems the following crimes "non-violent" and makes the perpetrators eligible for EARLY PAROLE and RELEASE into local communities:
Here are five more reasons to VOTE NO on 57: Finally, Prop. 57 places all these new privileges and rights for convicted criminals into the California Constitution, where they cannot be changed by the legislature. Make no mistake. If Prop. 57 passes, every home, every neighborhood, every school will be less safe than it is today. Ask yourself these questions: If you answered NO to these questions, then join District Attorneys, Courtroom Prosecutors, Police, Sheriffs, Crime Victims, Superior Court Judges and community leaders in voting NO on 57. Violent crime was up 10% last year in California. Don't allow more violent and dangerous criminals to be released early. VOTE NO on 57. |
Campaign advertisements
The following video advertisements were produced by No on 57:[32]
|
|
Campaign finance
Five committees registered to support and oppose Proposition 57. The support committees reported $12.6 million, and the opposition committees reported $1.8 million in contributions.[33]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $9,953,411.64 | $2,625,562.59 | $12,578,974.23 | $13,381,439.45 | $16,007,002.04 |
| Oppose | $1,775,585.42 | $55,406.54 | $1,830,991.96 | $1,191,126.43 | $1,246,532.97 |
| Total | $11,728,997.06 | $2,680,969.13 | $14,409,966.19 | $14,572,565.88 | $17,253,535.01 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[33]
| Committees in support of Proposition 57 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Yes on Prop. 57, Californians and Governor Brown for Public Safety and Rehabilitation | $7,446,411.64 | $2,625,562.59 | $10,071,974.23 | $8,328,517.62 | $10,954,080.21 |
| Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and No on 66 | $2,080,964.45 | $0.00 | $2,080,964.45 | $2,080,964.45 | $2,080,964.45 |
| Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55 and 57 | $426,035.55 | $0.00 | $426,035.55 | $2,971,957.38 | $2,971,957.38 |
| Total | $9,953,411.64 | $2,625,562.59 | $12,578,974.23 | $13,381,439.45 | $16,007,002.04 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.[33]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governor Brown's Ballot Measure Committee | $4,138,764.06 | $0.00 | $4,138,764.06 |
| California Democratic Party | $900,000.00 | $1,274,197.25 | $2,174,197.25 |
| Thomas Steyer | $1,750,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,750,000.00 |
| Open Society Policy Center, Inc. | $1,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000,000.00 |
| Reed Hastings | $0.00 | $980,962.47 | $980,962.47 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.[33]
| Committees in opposition to Proposition 57 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Los Angeles Police Protective League Issues PAC - Yes on 66, No on 57 | $980,950.50 | $0.00 | $980,950.50 | $358,645.71 | $358,645.71 |
| No on 57 - Stop Early Release of Violent Criminals (SERVC) | $794,634.92 | $55,406.54 | $850,041.46 | $832,480.72 | $887,887.26 |
| Total | $1,775,585.42 | $55,406.54 | $1,830,991.96 | $1,191,126.43 | $1,246,532.97 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[33]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs PIC | $200,000.00 | $0.00 | $200,000.00 |
| Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Association | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00 |
| Northwest Business Park LLC | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
| Association of Deputy District Attorneys | $85,000.00 | $0.00 | $85,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
Support
- The Bakersfield Californian: "Prosecutors, law enforcement and correctional officers adamantly opposed Prop. 57. They contend it will result in dangerous criminals being released. For that not to happen, the state must enhance its prisoner rehabilitation programs that will treat inmate drug abuse and prepare inmates for honest employment when they are released. One way or another, these prisoners eventually will be coming home. Either the courts will order their release, or we can create a better system to punish and rehabilitate felons."[34]
- East Bay Express: "Prop. 57 incentivizes nonviolent offenders to better themselves while serving time, and rewards them with early release. This saves taxpayers money and reduces the prison population. It’s sensible criminal-justice reform."[35]
- Los Angeles Times: "It's a welcome and needed measure, although less simple than the brevity of its language or various assertions on both sides would suggest. The Times urges voters to read it, understand it, and vote 'yes.' ... In addition to parole boards, prison officials would be able to grant inmates rehabilitation credits. This portion of the measure is controversial because it appears to apply to base terms as well as enhancements, but the thinking is sound. Inmates will have new incentives to change their behavior, both in prison and after release. For many inmates, prisons will cease to be merely warehouses and may at last become instruments of rehabilitation."[36]
- Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 57 would provide inmates with more incentive to turn their lives around and reduce their prison stay. … The state has to do more to reduce overcrowding in its prisons. Proposition 57 is a step in that direction.”[37]
- Orange County Register and The Press-Enterprise: "Gov. Jerry Brown sees Prop. 57 as a responsible way of not only avoiding mass releases, but encouraging those in prison to better themselves by participating in evidence-based rehabilitative programs. We agree."[38][39]
- San Diego City Beat: “ Non-violent crimes are not always peaceful; but these people are going to be released one day regardless, and the goal is for them to leave prison a better person than when they entered.”[40]
- The Sacramento Bee: “Implicit in Proposition 57 is that rehabilitation happens. Yes, there are risks. Future governors might scrimp on funding for rehabilitative programs. Parole authorities might grant easy release to a miscreant who goes on to commit a terrible crime. But with or without this initiative, most felons will get out of prison. Better that they earn their freedom by bettering themselves.”[41]
- San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 57.[42]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "So it’s all the more important for voters to see Prop. 57 clearly for what it is: a measure that will encourage nonviolent offenders to use their prison time to improve themselves."[43]
- San Francisco Examiner: "Prop. 57 is intended to help ease overcrowding in state prisons, similar to the intention of Prop. 47 two years ago."[44]
Opposition
- The Fresno Bee: "Details matter – especially when seeking to rewrite our state Constitution. Proposition 57 is seriously lacking important specifics. Most blatant: Its authors did not define “nonviolent” crime. This glaring lack of precision is reason enough to vote 'no.'[45]
- The Record: “Vote no. We do not see this as the best way to prison reform. We urge legislators to get to work to do this job — don’t leave it to the public.”[46]
- San Diego Union-Tribune: "The central selling point of its misleading ballot description — that it would help only 'nonviolent' felons — accepts the state’s esoteric classification of many violent crimes, including rape of an unconscious person, as not being violent. Brown’s allies decry this criticism and say of course such criminals would never get early parole. But this should be established in the proposition."[47]
- San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 57.[48]
- The Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Proposition 57 on the Nov. 8 ballot is another effort by Gov. Jerry Brown to rid the state of its inconvenient prison population by turning prisoners loose on the public."[49]
- Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "The net effect, law enforcement officials contend, is that more felons will end up back on the streets, putting communities at risk. 'The impacts are incalculable,' said Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch in a meeting with The Press Democrat Editorial Board. 'It’s a frightening situation.' ... Moreover, California has already reduced its prison population by some 50,000 inmates since 2009, nearing its target goal. It’s not clear whether such a drastic change in the state’s sentencing laws is needed, let alone desired. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 57."[50]
- The Mercury News: "California has to find more ways to reduce prison overcrowding and costs. Money that now goes to prisons could be far better spent on crime-solving or prevention. Early release for some offenders is a reasonable idea, but the strategy has to be clear. Prop. 57 is not good enough. Vote no."[51]
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures
- In mid-August 2016, California Counts surveyed Californians on Proposition 57. The firm found 72 percent of respondents in support. About 80 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents, and 56 percent of Republicans supported the measure.[52]
- In September 2016, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found that 66 percent of respondents were in favor of Proposition 57.[53]
- A Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 484 likely voters and found support for Proposition 57 to be 60 percent. Support was 78 percent among Democrats, 54 percent among independents, and 47 percent among Republicans.[54]
- In mid-October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 57. Support among respondents was 61 percent.[55]
- In late October 2016, USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times released a poll showing 57 percent of respondents supporting Proposition 57.[56]
- The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 64 percent.[57]
Polls with margins of error
| California Proposition 57 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 10/22/2016 - 10/30/2016 | 57.0% | 31.0% | 12.0% | +/-2.4 | 1,382 | ||||||||||||||
| CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016 | 61.0% | 16.0% | 23.0% | +/-7.0 | 622 | ||||||||||||||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 9/1/2016 - 9/8/2016 | 66.0% | 26.0% | 8.0% | +/-3.0 | 1,912 | ||||||||||||||
| California Counts 8/15/2016 - 8/25/2016 | 72.0% | 21.0% | 7.0% | +/-4.0 | 915 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 64% | 23.5% | 12.5% | +/-4.1 | 1,207.75 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
Polls without margins of error
- Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."[54]
| California Proposition 57 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Sample size | |||||||||||||||
| The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016 | 64.0% | 32.0% | 4.0% | 1,498 | |||||||||||||||
| The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016 | 60.0% | 21.0% | 19.0% | 484 | |||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 62% | 26.5% | 11.5% | 991 | |||||||||||||||
| Note: 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
| Voting on Civil and Criminal Trials |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
- See also: California signature requirements
- Margaret Prinzing and Harry Berezin submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 22, 2015.[8]
- Proponents, including Governor Jerry Brown, amended the original initiative filing to include increasing sentencing credits and allowing earlier parole for nonviolent felons.[58]
- After proponents won a court battle, the initiative was issued a title and summary on February 26, 2016, allowing petitioners to begin collecting signatures for the initiative petition.[58]
- 585,407 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- According to several media reports, Gov. Brown, who was made ineligible for re-election by term limits, announced that he could use the $24 million he had left over from campaigning for his gubernatorial race to collect the needed signatures.[59]
- On May 20, 2016, supporters submitted nearly one million signatures to election officials for verification.[60]
- An adjusted signature submission deadline of August 24, 2016, was established after a preliminary ruling in the lawsuit filed against the initiative.
- Proposition 57 qualified for the November 2016 ballot on June 30, 2016.[61]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Kimball Petition Management, Inc. and Groundwork Campaigns, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $4,818,267.20 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.23.
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text | |
| Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association | Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law. | Defendant argument: The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law. |
This lawsuit was initially ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating the initiative and requiring proponents to refile to continue the initiative campaign. Upon appeal, the California Supreme Court temporarily overturned the original ruling, allowing the initiative to move into the signature gathering phase. The supreme court ultimately ruled in favor of the initiative petitioners, allowing them to continue to permanently move forward with the initiative and qualify it for the ballot.
The California District Attorneys Association filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against the proponents of Proposition 57 seeking to prevent it or delay it from being cleared for circulation. The lawsuit argued that proponents substantially changed the proposed initiative originally filed with the attorney general through later amendments. The amendments upon which the lawsuit was based concerned sentencing credits for inmates who completed rehabilitation programs and parole opportunities for nonviolent felons. The original filing concerned only the reform of rules for juveniles being tried in adult court.[62]
Gov. Brown responded to the lawsuit by saying, "It's perplexing why these DAs would deny the people of California their right to vote on this important public safety measure."[62]
Ruling
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Chang stated that “the attorney general abused her discretion” by approving the amendments to Proposition 57, agreeing with plaintiffs that the changes significantly altered the purpose and provisions of the originally filed initiative. Chang also stated in her ruling that the amendments in question amounted to "the type of mischief that the Legislature had in mind” when it made laws prohibiting that amendments unrelated to the original initiative could not be made without re-filing the initiative.[58]
Appeal
Petitioners filed an immediate appeal of the ruling to the California Supreme Court. On February 26, 2016, the appeal was initially decided in favor of initiative proponents, at least temporarily overturning the original court decision. This ruling allowed petitioners to begin circulating the initiative. The state supreme court, however, retained the option to invalidate Proposition 57 at a later date if it determined the amendments in question were improper after further consideration. No arguments were provided by the court concerning the lawsuit's merit or the validity of the targeted amendments. Rather, the decision was seemingly made based on the argument that postponing signature gathering could delay the initiative measure until the 2018 election ballot even if the court ultimately determined the amendments were legal and proper.[58][63] On June 6, 2016, the state supreme court rejected the previous lower court ruling, and ruled 6-1 in favor of the initiative proponents, allowing supporters to move forward with their efforts to qualify the initiative for the November 2016 ballot.[64] If Judge Chang's ruling had been upheld, the initiative could have been delayed until the 2018 elections.
State profile
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Endorsers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Proposition 57 California 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Related measures
| Civil and criminal trials measures on the ballot in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| Georgia | Georgia Additional Penalties for Sex Crimes to Fund Services for Sexually Exploited Children, Amendment 2 |
See also
External links
Basic information
Other resources
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, "ACSOL v. Department of Corrections: Preliminary Order," February 8, 2018
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Non-forcible sex-crimes offenders are eligible for early parole, California Supreme Court rules," December 28, 2020
- ↑ California Supreme Court, "ACSOL v. Department of Corrections," December 28, 2020
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California must consider earlier parole for sex offenders, judge rules," February 8, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 California Supreme Court, "People v. Superior Court of Riverside," February 1, 2018
- ↑ U.S. News, "California Court Expands Reach of Limits on Juvenile Charges," February 1, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown to seek November ballot initiative to relax mandatory prison sentences," January 27, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 California Secretary of State, "Full text," accessed July 1, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Record Searchlight, "Skeptics question proposed criminal sentences ballot measure," January 28, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 KQED, "Gov. Jerry Brown Proposes Changes to Felon Sentences, Juvenile Courts," January 27, 2016
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 California Secretary of State, "Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed July 19, 2016
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ Yes on 57, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Yes on 57, "Endorsements," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
- ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
- ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
- ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
- ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
- ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ Highland Community News, “Nurses Endorse Gun Safety, Death Penalty Repeal Measures,” September 26, 2016
- ↑ California Labor Federation, "Proposition 57," accessed September 27, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer endorses Gov. Jerry Brown's parole overhaul, Proposition 57," October 4, 2016
- ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
- ↑ No on 57, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ Politifact, "Loretta Sanchez misleads with Prop 57 claim," October 7, 2016
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 No on 57, "Coalition," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ California Republican Party, “CAGOP Endorsements of Propositions on the California 2016 Ballot,” accessed September 12, 2016
- ↑ KEYT, "Law enforcement agencies oppose Proposition 57," October 12, 2016
- ↑ No on 57 Youtube, "No on 57 Channel," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 Cal-Access, "Proposition 57," accessed February 20, 2025
- ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: Vote yes on Prop. 57; reform California’s sentencing law," September 4, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop 57 is a much-needed check on prosecutorial power. Vote yes," October 5, 2016
- ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Marin IJ Editorial: Proposition 54 needed to stem legislative hijinks," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Orange County Register, "Yes on Proposition 57," October 16, 2016
- ↑ The Press-Enterprise, "Yes on Proposition 57," October 15, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Prop. 57 would fix a mistake, help rehabilitate felons," September 27, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "The Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 57," September 10, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Poorly written Proposition 57 deserves your ‘no’ vote," October 1, 2016
- ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "California needs criminal justice reform but not Prop. 57," October 25, 2016
- ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
- ↑ The Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Our view: Protect lives and property: No on Prop 57," September 12, 2016
- ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: No on Prop 57: Too many risks in parole plan," September 22, 2016
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Vote no on sloppily written Prop. 57," September 23, 2016
- ↑ California Counts, "California Counts poll offers insights into voters outlook on state," September 8, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Two-thirds of Californians favor Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to revamp prison parole rules," September 16, 2016
- ↑ 54.0 54.1 Field Poll/IGS Poll, "Strong support for tax extension and criminal sentencing initiatives; cigarette tax leads, but by narrower margin," September 23, 2016
- ↑ CALSPEAKS, "General Election October 2016 Survey of Californians," October 20, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "New poll finds voters poised to pass Prop. 57 and revamp California's prison parole rules," November 3, 2016
- ↑ The Field Poll, "Voters Inclined to Support Many of this Year's Statewide Ballot Propositions," November 4, 2016
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 The Washington Times, "Judge blocks California governor’s prison population plan," February 24, 2016
- ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "California's nonviolent criminals could get earlier parole under new ballot measure endorsed by Gov. Jerry Brown," January 27, 2016
- ↑ CBS Sacramento, "California Governor Turns in Signatures for Crime Initiative," May 21, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed August 2, 2016
- ↑ 62.0 62.1 Daily Journal, "California prosecutors announced Friday that they are seeking to block Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed ballot initiative to reduce the state's prison population," February 12, 2016
- ↑ Jurist, "California Supreme Court rules in favor of prison overcrowding ballot measure," February 27, 2016
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "California Supreme Court allows Gov. Brown's prison plan on ballot," June 6, 2016
 |
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 |
