2014 California Proposition 47

Proposition 47

November 4, 2014 (2014-11-04)
Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, also called The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act on the ballot information guide.
Location	California
Results
Response Votes % Yes 4,238,156 59.61% No 2,871,943 40.39% Valid votes 7,110,099 94.63% Invalid or blank votes 403,873 5.37% Total votes 7,513,972 100.00%
Source: California Secretary of State[1]

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem GOP 2000 Dem GOP 2004 Dem GOP 2008 Dem GOP 2012 Dem GOP 2016 Dem GOP 2020 Dem GOP U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th sp 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp v t
State government (executive) Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 Lieutenant governor 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Attorney General 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of State 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance Commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent of Public Instruction 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 State Board of Equalization 2018 v t
State government (legislative) State Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Special State Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Special v t
State government (judicial) Court of Appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006 v t
Propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1978 6 8 13 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 47 2016 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 6 7 9 10 12 2020–2029 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Full list v t
Elections by year State elections 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 v t
Anaheim Mayor 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 v t
Bakersfield Mayoral elections 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
Fresno Mayor 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
Irvine Mayoral elections 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 v t
Long Beach Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 v t
Los Angeles General 2009 2011 2013 2017 2020 Mayor 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (sp) 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2022 City Attorney 2009 Board of Supervisors 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Ballot measures 1980 A 1986 U 2008 R 2012 B J 2016 M 2017 S v t
Oakland Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t
Orange County District Attorney 2018 Board of Supervisors 2018 2020 v t
Riverside Mayor 1997 2001 2005 2009 2012 2016 2020 v t
Sacramento Mayor 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
San Bernardino Mayor 2005 2009 2014 2018 v t
San Diego Mayor 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (sp) 1984 1986 (sp) 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 (sp) 2008 2012 2013–14 (sp) 2016 2020 City Attorney 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Municipal elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Special Board of Supervisors 2020 v t
San Francisco Mayor 1971 1975 1979 1983 (recall) 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 (sp) 2019 2023 District Attorney 2019 2022 (recall) Board of Supervisors 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Board of Education 2018 2022 (recall) General elections 2004 Mar Nov 2005 2006 Jun Nov 2007 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2011 2012 Jun Nov 2013 2022 Feb v t
San Jose Mayor 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t
Stockton Mayoral elections 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
v t

Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.^[2] It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.

The crimes affected were:

• 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 (Below a certain threshold of weight)^[3]

Effects[]

The measure's main effects were to convert many nonviolent offenses, such as drug and property offenses, from felonies to misdemeanors. These offenses include shoplifting, writing bad checks, and drug possession. The measure also required that money saved as a result of the measure would be spent on "school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health, and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail."^[4] The measure included exceptions for offenses involving more than $950 and criminals with records including violence or sex offenses.^[5] For example, forgery had previously been a "wobbler" offense that could be charged by the prosecutor as a misdemeanor or a felony. Now with the passage of Proposition 47, prosecutors cannot charge a forgery involving less than $950 as a felony unless the defendant has a criminal record.^[6]

The measure both affects future convictions and allows for people currently incarcerated for crimes covered by the measure to petition for re-sentencing.^[7]

In November 2015, a report by the Stanford University Justice Advocacy Project authored by the co-author of Proposition 47, found that Proposition 47 had reduced the state's prison population by 13,000 and that it would save the state about $150 million that year.^[8]

For impact on crime rates, see below.

The provision allowing past offenders to petition for resentencing would have expired on November 4, 2017, but subsequent legislation extended the deadline to November 4, 2022.^[9]

Support[]

The measure was endorsed by the editorial board of The New York Times, which praised it as a way to reduce overcrowding in the state's prisons.^[10] It was also endorsed by the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, which wrote that the measure was a "good and timely measure that can help the state make smarter use of its criminal justice and incarceration resources."^[11] The American Civil Liberties Union also supported the measure and donated $3.5 million to support it.^[12]

Prominent individual supporters included Jay-Z and Newt Gingrich.^[13]

Opposition[]

Opponents of the measure include Mark A. Peterson, the District Attorney of Contra Costa County, who wrote before its passage that the measure "would make our neighborhoods and schools less safe".^[14] It was also criticized by Nancy O'Malley, the District Attorney of Alameda County, who said it would "expose Californians to significant harm" and called it a "Trojan horse".^[15]

Among the most prominent arguments made against the law was that possession of the date-rape drug Rohypnol would, under the law, be punished as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which critics described as a "slap on the wrist".^[16] Critics also argued that not being able to use incarceration to force drug users into treatment would make it more difficult for drug users to enter into a treatment program.^[17]

Impact on crime rates[]

In 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that "law enforcement officials and others have blamed Proposition 47 for allowing repeat offenders...to continue breaking the law with little consequence."^[18] Also that year, a spokesman for George Gascón, the district attorney of San Francisco, said that the law "has made it easier for drug offenders to avoid mandated treatment programs." The mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, has also suggested that the law may explain why his city's crime rates went from decreasing to increasing.^[19] In a 2015 story in The Washington Post, the police chief of San Diego, , described Proposition 47 as "a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card." She and other police chiefs also expressed concern about the increasing phenomenon of "frequent flier" criminals–people who exploit Proposition 47 to commit crimes. For example, one criminal allegedly brought a calculator into a store to avoid stealing more than $950 worth of goods.^[20] The ACLU faulted California law enforcement response to the law and said that those who linked Proposition 47 and crime were "making irresponsible and inaccurate statements."^[21]

The director of the Stanford Justice Advocacy Project and co-author of Proposition 47, Michael Romano, said in November 2015 that, with respect to Proposition 47, "In the long term, this reallocation of resources should significantly improve public safety". Romano authored a study supporting his conclusion.^[8]

A March 2016 report released by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice concluded that it was still too early to determine whether Proposition 47 had an effect on California's crime rates.^[22]

A study in June 2018 by the Public Policy Institute of California found evidence that Proposition 47 may have contributed toward an uptick in larceny and auto break-in thefts.^{[23]: 2 [24]} The study indicates it found a decline in recidivism and no evidence of an increase in violent crime linked to Proposition 47. ^[23]: 2

However, a 2018 study from the University of California, Irvine, maintains that Prop 47 was not a "driver" for recent upticks in crime, based upon comparison of data from New York, Nevada, Michigan and New Jersey (states that closely matched California’s crime trends) 1970 to 2015, but that "what the measure did do was cause less harm and suffering to those charged with crime."^[25]

Numerous media outlets have continued to report an increase in retail theft related to the passage of Prop 47. Large retailers Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies reported in 2016 that shoplifting increased by as much as 15 percent, and in some cases doubled, since voters approved Proposition 47.^[26] The Los Angeles Times reported in 2018 that researchers found Prop 47 contributed to a jump in car burglaries, shoplifting and other thefts.^[27]

The Public Policy Institute of California reported in 2018 that Prop. 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate of about 9 percent compared to the 2014 rate.^[28]

See also[]

• 2000 California Proposition 36
• 2004 California Proposition 66

References[]