California Proposition 36, Changes to Three Strikes Sentencing Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 36
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 36, the Changes to Three Strikes Sentencing Initiative, was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 6, 2012. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported changingthe three strikes sentencing system established by a 1994 ballot initiative, Proposition 184, to impose life sentences when new felony convictions are serious or violent; allowed resentencing for convicts serving life sentences for felonies that were not serious or violent, except in the case of rape, murder, or child molestation.

A "no" vote opposed changing the three strikes sentencing system established by a 1994 ballot initiative, Proposition 184, that was designed to increase prison sentences for repeat offenders.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 36
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		8,575,619	69.30%
No		3,798,218	30.70%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Proposition 36 modified elements of California's "Three Strikes" Law, which was approved by the state's voters in 1994. In 2004, voters rejected Proposition 66, which like the 2012 measure was an attempt to change some aspects of the original "Three Strikes" Law.

California Proposition 36 (2012)

Proposition 36 changed state law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent." It also allowed re-sentencing for offenders serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent. In addition, the judge must determine that the re-sentence is not a threat to public safety. Proposition 36 also imposed a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession." Finally, it maintained the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."

One impact of the approval of Proposition 36 was that the approximately 3,000 convicted felons who were as of November 2012 serving life terms under the Three Strikes law, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, became eligible to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence.

Altogether, about 8,800 prisoners were serving life terms in California prisons under the 1994 law.

As of 2012, 24 states had a type of three strikes sentencing system.

California Proposition 184 (1994)

See also: California Proposition 184, Three Strikes Sentencing Initiative (1994)

The measure was designed to increase prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three-strikes sentencing model was enacted as follows:

• Strike 1: persons with no prior violent or serious felony conviction who commit a violent or serious felony receive a sentence for that felony as prescribe by state law.
• Strike 2: persons with one prior violent or serious felony conviction who again commit any type of felony receive a sentence twice the term state law otherwise required.
• Strike 3: persons with two prior violent or serious felony convictions who again commit any type of felony receive a life sentence, with a minimum imprisonment of 25 years.

The measure also counted serious or violent felony convictions received as minors, who were at least 16 years old, as previous convictions in the three-strikes sentencing model. Proposition 184 decreased the number of credits that persons who were imprisoned under the initiative for Strike 2 or Strike 3 could receive to reduce their time in prison.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 36 was as follows:

“

Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. • Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. • Continues to impose life sentence penalty if third strike conviction was for certain nonserious, nonviolent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession. • Maintains life sentence penalty for felons with nonserious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

State savings related to prison and parole operations of $70 million annually on an ongoing basis, with even higher savings—up to $90 million annually—over the next couple of decades. These estimates could be higher or lower by tens of millions of dollars depending on future state actions. One-time state and county costs of a few million dollars over the next couple of years for court activities related to the resentencing of certain offenders.

Support

Logo for the "Yes on 36" campaign

Yes on 36 led the campaign in support of Proposition 36.

Supporters

• The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
• Mike Romano, a Stanford University law professor who founded the "Three Strikes Project" in 2006
• Geri Silva of "Families Against California's Three Strikes"
• California Democratic Party

Official arguments

The arguments in favor of Proposition 36 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Steve Cooley, the District Attorney for Los Angeles County; George Gascon, the District Attorney for San Francisco; and David Mills, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“

The Three Strikes Reform Act, Proposition 36, is supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of law enforcement leaders, civil rights organizations and taxpayer advocates because it will: MAKE THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME Precious financial and law enforcement resources should not be improperly diverted to impose life sentences for some non-violent offenses. Prop. 36 will assure that violent repeat offenders are punished and not released early. SAVE CALIFORNIA OVER $100 MILLION EVERY YEAR Taxpayers could save over $100 million per year—money that can be used to fund schools, fight crime and reduce the state’s deficit. The Three Strikes law will continue to punish dangerous career criminals who commit serious violent crimes—keeping them off the streets for 25 years to life. MAKE ROOM IN PRISON FOR DANGEROUS FELONS Prop. 36 will help stop clogging overcrowded prisons with non-violent offenders, so we have room to keep violent felons off the streets. LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT Prosecutors, judges and police officers support Prop. 36 because Prop. 36 helps ensure that prisons can keep dangerous criminals behind bars for life. Prop. 36 will keep dangerous criminals off the streets. TAXPAYER SUPPORT Prop. 36 could save $100 million every year. Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform says, 'The Three Strikes Reform Act is tough on crime without being tough on taxpayers. It will put a stop to needlessly wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ hard-earned money, while protecting people from violent crime.' The California State Auditor projects that taxpayers will pay millions to house and pay health care costs for non-violent Three Strikes inmates if the law is not changed. Prop. 36 will save taxpayers’ money. TOUGH AND SMART ON CRIME Criminal justice experts and law enforcement leaders carefully crafted Prop. 36 so that truly dangerous criminals will receive no benefits whatsoever from the reform. Repeat criminals will get life in prison for serious or violent third strike crimes. Repeat offenders of non-violent crimes will get more than double the ordinary sentence. Any defendant who has ever been convicted of an extremely violent crime—such as rape, murder, or child molestation—will receive a 25 to life sentence, no matter how minor their third strike offense. JOIN US With the passage of Prop. 36, California will retain the toughest recidivist Three Strikes law in the country but will be fairer by emphasizing proportionality in sentencing and will provide for more evenhanded application of this important law. Please join us by Voting Yes on Proposition 36. Learn more at www.FixThreeStrikes.org

”

Opposition

Logo for the "No on 36" campaign

No on 36 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 36.

Opponents

• Mike Reynolds
• California Republican Party.

Arguments

• Mike Reynolds, who wrote the language for California's "Three Strikes" Law. He said, "Once someone has been convicted of two serious or violent offences, I suggest it's pretty clear what they are capable of. If this passes, we are likely to see property crimes going up all over the state, and in very short order."

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 36 presented in the state's official voter guide included:

Official arguments

The arguments against Proposition 36 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Sheriff Keith Royal, the president of the California State Sheriff’s Association; Carl Adams, the president of the California District Attorneys Association; and Harriet Salerno, the president of Crime Victims United of California:

“

In 1994 voters overwhelmingly passed the Three Strikes law —a law that increased prison sentences for repeat felons. And it worked! Almost immediately, our state’s crime rate plummeted and has remained low, even during the current recession. The reason is pretty simple. The same criminals were committing most of the crime—cycling through our courts and jails—over and over again. The voters said enough—Three Strikes and You’re Out! In 2004, the ACLU and other opponents of tough criminal laws tried to change Three Strikes. The voters said NO. Now they are back again with Proposition 36. They couldn’t fool us last time and they won’t fool us this time. Just like before, Proposition 36 allows dangerous criminals to get their prison sentence REDUCED and then RELEASED FROM PRISON! So who does Proposition 36 apply to? Criminals so dangerous to society that a District Attorney chose to charge them with a Three Strike offense; Criminals so dangerous that a Judge agreed with DA’s decision to charge; Criminals so dangerous that a jury convicted them of that offense; Criminals so dangerous that a Judge imposed a 25-to-life prison sentence; and Criminals whose legal appeals were denied. After all that, Proposition 36 would let those same criminals ask a DIFFERENT Judge to set them free. Worse yet, some of these criminals will be released from prison WITHOUT PAROLE OR ANY SUPERVISION! Here’s what the Independent Legislative Analyst says about the early release of some prisoners under Proposition 36: 'Some of them could be released from prison without community supervision.' No wonder Proposition 36 is OPPOSED by California Police, Sheriff’s and law enforcement groups, including: California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriff’s Association California District Attorneys Association Peace Officers Research Association of California Los Angeles Police Protective League What do you think these newly released hardened criminals will do once they get out of prison? We already know the answer to that: They will commit more crimes, harm or kill more innocent victims, and ultimately end up right where they are today—back in prison. All of this will cost taxpayers more than keeping them behind bars right where they belong. No wonder Proposition 36 is opposed by victim rights groups, including: Crime Victims United of California Crime Victim Action Alliance Citizens Against Homicide Criminal Justice Legal Foundation At the time Three Strikes was approved by the voters, some thought it might be too harsh or too costly. Voters rejected that view in 2004. But even if you believe that the Thee Strikes law should be reformed, Proposition 36 is not the answer. Any change to the sentencing laws should only apply to future crimes committed—it should not apply to criminals already behind bars—cutting their sentences short. It is simply not fair to the victims of crime to have to relive the pain of resentencing and early release of these dangerous criminals. We kindly ask you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 36. www.save3strikes.com

”

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

• The Bay Area Reporter: "This measure provides that a life sentence on the third strike could be imposed only for a serious or violent felony. Currently, untold numbers of inmates whose third strike was for non-violent drug possession are serving life sentences. This is a waste of money. Our priorities as a society are backward when we spend increasing amounts of money on incarceration and less and less on education."

• The Contra Costa Times: "This would fix some of the flaws in the Three-Strikes Law that have caused overcrowding in our state's prisons and jails. No one wants violent criminals back on the streets, and Proposition 36 doesn't do that."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "This initiative would modify the state's 'three-strikes' law to limit excessive and unjustified punishments and ensure punishments are applied equally."

• The Fresno Bee: "Opponents say the Three Strikes law has led to the drop in the crime rate, and we agree that it is one of the many reasons for reduced crime. But this adjustment in the Three Strikes law makes sense."

• The Lompoc Record: "A major flaw in the existing three-strikes law is that some people are given life behind bars for low-level third-strike felonies, which tends to fill prisons with three-strikers who aren’t necessarily a threat to society. Prop. 36 doesn’t let those third-strike criminals completely off the hook. A non-violent third strike would earn a sentence twice what such an offense would normally draw — while saving taxpayers an estimated $100 million over the next decade."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Not only does this change make the punishment fit the crime, it would make Three Strikes uniform throughout the state."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "It's unfortunate that any inmate must be released early. But as long as that's the order of the high court, it should be done fairly, sensibly and cost-effectively. That's not happening now. Make Three Strikes better and vote for Prop. 36."

• The Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 36 would create a level playing field and reserve harsh penalties only for dangerous criminals."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "The proposition makes sure the law targets the worst criminals by imposing a life sentence only when the new conviction is 'serious or violent' or involved firearm possession."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for attorney general in 2010 and hardly a bleeding heart, is one of its main backers."

• The Modesto Bee:

• The North County Times: "The plain truth is that our prison system is broken. Given the state's financial straits, the only realistic way to restore it to health is to reduce the load on it."

• The Orange County Register: "For, while Californians continue to support three strikes, which mandates a prison sentence of 25 years to life for offenders convicted of a third 'strike,' many who otherwise support the law are concerned that a nonserious, nonviolent third conviction potentially can send an offender away for the rest of his life. Proposition 36, the Three-Strikes Reform Act, would address that concern by revising the 18-year-old law to impose a 25-to-life sentence only when the third strike is violent or otherwise serious."

• The Press-Enterprise: "Prop. 36 would set a more coherent approach to crime without letting criminals escape justice. California should punish crimes — but that effort needs to be fair and sensible as well as tough-minded."

• The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 36 would sand down some of the law's rough edges and ensure that it is applied equally across all 58 counties, but leave the law's strong heart in place."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "The original law said a third strike could be a petty theft or a drug possession. The result was to fill up the jails with people who had stolen socks or fallen off the wagon of their 12-step program. That is not what voters intended, and should be fixed. Prop. 36 would do that by requiring that the third strike be serious or violent - unless the first convictions were for rape, murder or child molestation. Things won't change for the state's most violent predators."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Proposition 36...would make a smart improvement to 'three strikes'."

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "On Nov. 4, 1995, a small-time criminal named Leando Andrada stole $150 worth of videotapes from K-Mart. The father of three was charged with felony theft — and since he'd had prior convictions for burglary and marijuana transportation, his conviction led to a sentence of 25 years to life. That's nuts — but it's the result of a very bad 1994 law that has made California one of the harshest states in the nation for repeat offenders — and has overcrowded the state prisons and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "There was a problem with this state's version of three strikes that has led to gross injustices as well as a huge waste of taxpayer money. Unlike in other states, the third felony conviction - or strike, triggering a sentence of 25 years to life - does not need to be a serious or violent offense."

• The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "The voters absolutely did the right thing when they approved the measure back in 1994. Three Strikes has been a huge factor in helping reduce violent crime in California, but it had unintended consequences and it needs improvement."

• The San Jose Mercury News

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "We choose to believe that voters who support the original intention of three strikes realize locking up drug addicts for life because they are repeat offenders is both unfair and costly. Some 40 percent of third-strike prisoners in our state are nonviolent offenders."

Opposition

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "As crime is already rising, Proposition 36 would only put the law-abiding at further risk."

• The Ventura County Star: "Proposition 36...favors criminals over crime victims. Proposition 36 would allow about 3,000 third-strikers to seek resentencing by a judge if their third strike was not a serious or violent offense, thus reducing prison costs, proponents of the measure say. What they aren't telling voters is that the majority of these three-strikers are career criminals, who once freed from prison will likely commit new crimes. When arrested, they will again clog an overburdened court system, offsetting any saving as cities and counties, many dealing with shrinking budgets, will be forced to retry them."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from September 17-23, 2012.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 17-23, 2012	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	66%	20%	14%	1,504
October 7-9, 2012	SurveyUSA	44%	22%	34%	700
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	72.0%	17.1%	10.9%	830
October 15-21	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	63%	22%	15%	1,504
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	67.4%	22.0%	10.6%	2,115

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Dan Newman submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on October 21, 2011.
• The ballot title and ballot summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 15, 2011.
• To qualify for the ballot, 504,760 valid signatures.
• The 150-day circulation deadline for #11-0057 was May 14, 2012.
• Sponsors submitted over 830,000 signatures to county election officials in late April.
• On June 11, 2012, sponsors were notified that Proposition 36 had qualified for the November 6, 2012, ballot.

Cost of signature collection:

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 36 for the ballot came to $1,475,775.

The signature vendor was Progressive Campaigns (PCI).

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information:

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 11-0057

Supporters:

• Fix Three Strikes, website supporting Proposition 36
• "Yes on 36" on Facebook
• "Yes on 36" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports of the "Yes on 36" campaign committee

Opponents:

• Save 3 Strikes, website opposing Proposition 36
• Campaign finance reports of the "No on 36" campaign committee