When it first emerged last year, a California proposal to increase penalties for some drug and theft crimes provoked a discussion over the type of punishment nonviolent offenders deserve. As the campaign for the ballot initiative enters its final month, the debate has turned toward a more prosaic concern: what California can afford. Opponents of Proposition 36 have succeeded in changing the subject to the cost of its mandated treatment for repeat drug offenders and projected prison population increases as they try to overcome financial and polling deficits. To make their case, they point to a fiscal impact statement from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which says the measure will require at least tens of millions of dollars more in spending by both state and local governments, reports Politico.
That new focus represents a concession by opponents that, in a year in which voters nationwide say they’re deeply concerned about crime, a progressive message on criminal justice may not be a winning one.
The appeal to fiscal conservatism has forestalled some of the momentum Prop 36 boosters had from Democrats holding local office around the state. A No on 36 lobbying campaign has prompted several large city and county governments to postpone or table endorsement votes due to cost concerns. In San Diego County this week, the board of supervisors will reconsider whether to back the initiative with fresh information about its fiscal impact. “It is really important for people to understand, on the granular level, how Prop 36 would impact their communities,” said Anthony York, a spokesperson for the No on 36 campaign. “You can say [it] cuts money for drug treatment in the abstract, but when you say, ‘It’s going to cut this much in your community and from this specific program’ — the more of that that we can do, the more we can humanize the toll Prop 36 would have on people, the more effective we’re going to be at moving voters.”
Kommentare