The fracture in the coalition supporting California's strict crime legislation
A collaboration between retailers and prosecutors is deteriorating after a summer marked by strained negotiations and actions taken by Democratic leaders.
TroibNews 
The campaign for a tough-on-crime ballot initiative in California, Proposition 36, is entering its final stretch with favorable conditions. The initiative is polling above 70 percent, has a substantial bipartisan group of prominent supporters, and enjoys a significant financial edge over its adversaries.
However, one key element has been lacking: the once-strong coalition that initially propelled Prop 36 and emphasized law-and-order issues in California politics.
This initiative seeks to reverse a decade-old criminal justice reform by intensifying penalties for drug crimes and theft. It was crafted by a coalition of county district attorneys and large retail chains, such as Target, Home Depot, and Walmart, creating an ideal partnership in an arena where campaigns typically require vast sums of money to reach voters: retailers would provide the funding, while prosecutors would lend their policy expertise and political influence.
Yet, intense negotiations over a possible legislative compromise this summer have led some business interests to reconsider their alliance with prosecutors in the campaign to pass Prop 36.
These divisions threaten to undermine the solid position of one of the nation’s most scrutinized ballot measures as crime and public safety concerns resurface prominently among voters nationwide.
National chains and other business groups were receptive to offers from Gov. Gavin Newsom to address theft issues via compromise legislation; meanwhile, prosecutors remained firmly opposed to any deal. A pivotal moment in the discussions arose when private communications leaked to the media between the governor’s chief of staff and the California Attorney General’s Association, seemingly aimed at embarrassing Newsom, who is widely believed to have been targeted by the prosecutors.
The rift over policy priorities, political tactics, and conflicting personalities has weakened the coalition's unity. Some groups instrumental in getting Prop 36 on the ballot are now reassessing their commitment and considering whether they wish to continue their involvement.
“Some of the tactics that were used were unfortunate,” remarked Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Association, which was critical to Prop 36’s inception but is now contemplating withdrawing its support. “I think it was a huge missed opportunity … a lot of egos were involved, and to me, it was sad to see.”
While Democrats led by Newsom could not persuade the tough-on-crime coalition to retract its initiative, the governor's recent enactment of laws targeting retail theft, addressing many concerns shared by the initiative, has continued to widen the gulf between former allies of Prop 36.
“I know some probably have characterized us as maybe a little stubborn,” remarked Yes on 36 co-chair Greg Totten, who also heads the California District Attorneys Association. “But I take pretty strong issue with that. At the end of the day we were prepared to negotiate, but we wanted a package that actually fixed the problem.”
Some coalition members that initially funded the campaign, such as Target and Home Depot, have not contributed additional funding since the initiative qualified for the ballot. Others are being solicited by a rival pro-Prop 36 committee focusing on garnering moderate Democrat support. This new committee could present challenges in messaging and fundraising for the primary Yes on 36 effort.
Critics of the initiative see an opportunity to separate well-known retail brands from local politicians, whose records and motives may be easier targets.
“Once you strip away the retailers, their money and their messaging, what's left?” questioned Anthony York, spokesman for the No on 36 campaign. “It’s the same people who pushed three strikes legislation, who opposed Prop 47, it’s the same prison industrial complex that’s been behind this for decades.”
The coalition that initially supported Prop 36 was formed in response to the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, which had relaxed certain penalties as part of a broader criminal justice reform movement. Distrustful of these changes, district attorneys quickly sought ways to amend the laws.
In 2020, the California District Attorneys Association proposed Proposition 20 to address their concerns, aiming to reinforce penalties for select theft and fraud offenses and modify rules for parole. However, the measure was significantly outspent by opposition and was rejected by voters by more than 20 points.
Following that loss, the association underwent a leadership change. Totten, a former Ventura County DA, was tasked with rallying support against Prop 47, which he claimed would weaken public safety. He returned at a time when crime rates surged during the pandemic, creating a public perception of rampant shoplifting.
Under Totten’s leadership, the prosecutors sought to construct a broader coalition that included the retail sector, which had long urged legislative action on theft without success.
“We were all hearing from the business community about their frustration with theft and the lack of consequences,” Totten shared, noting that many businesses felt compelled to avoid calling the police due to futility.
The prosecutors aimed to engage large retailers struggling with theft during the pandemic by shifting the initiative’s focus to property crimes. This partnership provided considerably more financial backing than previous efforts.
The initiative was supported through the newly formed Californians for Safer Communities coalition, which managed to secure significant contributions from major retailers like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot, ultimately qualifying for the ballot.
However, the unity began to crumble when state Democrats pursued an agreement to assuage retailers’ concerns and bury the initiative.
Last year, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas established a select committee on retail theft, aimed at finding legislative solutions without needing a ballot measure. Retailers were optimistic about this potential compromise and began to distance themselves from the original Prop 36 backers.
Democratic lawmakers advanced a package of retail theft legislation aiming to create new felony categories and provide tools for law enforcement. While prosecutors maintained that a legislative solution wouldn’t address core issues, retailers began to support the bills, further straining the coalition.
Then, a story detailing email exchanges between Totten and the governor’s chief of staff emerged, revealing Totten’s rejection of a proposed two-year delay for the initiative—news that intensified tensions and dashed hopes for a compromise.
“We think this is so broad-based, that’s not going to happen very much — but I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see a few people do that. That’s just the nature of these kinds of issues,” said Totten, acknowledging the shifting landscape.
In mid-August, Newsom publicly demonstrated his backing for legislative solutions to theft by signing bills promoting tougher measures against organized retail crime. “The issue of organized retail theft, the issue of serial theft — [that is] the issue that is front and center in the consciousness of so many Californians,” he stated.
Democrats believed they had successfully created a division between initiative supporters and prosecutors, potentially diminishing the financial and political support for Prop 36. Retail groups that had previously taken an active role have now reduced their participation, with limited contributions coming in, aside from some notable donations from California tribes and smaller entities.
Totten maintains contact with major retailers, asserting that they remain involved members of the coalition, but a wave of disenchantment runs through the initial stakeholders of the proposal.
At the same time, a new pro-Prop 36 effort has emerged, focusing on gathering moderate Democrat support and presenting the initiative as a compassionate measure to address homelessness and drug addiction.
This growing movement could provide an angle for those hesitating to align with either Newsom or prosecutors, navigating their positions in light of the contentious California political landscape.As the campaign for Proposition 36 evolves, the landscape is becoming increasingly complex. The emergence of this new pro-Prop 36 committee, spearheaded by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho, and Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen, aims to unite moderate Democrats while framing the initiative as a humane approach to deal with California’s homelessness and drug crises.
This new coalition represents a strategic pivot, attempting to address the concerns that have arisen among key retail backers and the potential fallout from the initiative's original champions. By positioning Prop 36 as a solution to broader societal issues, this group hopes to rejuvenate support and reinvigorate donor interest, especially among those unsure of where to align their loyalties in light of the current rift.
In many ways, this situation reflects a broader trend in American politics, where public safety issues are often leveraged for both progressive and conservative agendas. The complexity of the issue means that groups with traditionally divergent views may find common ground in seeking effective solutions, even as they navigate the political terrain carefully.
Another critical factor at play is the larger dialogue around criminal justice reform. The outcry against rising crime rates during the pandemic resulted in renewed scrutiny of previous reforms, such as Proposition 47. The balance between supporting governmental efforts to address crime and maintaining a commitment to reforms aimed at reducing incarceration rates continues to be a contentious topic among voters.
The divergent strategies of the Prop 36 campaign and its opponents underscore this tension. While the campaign pursues a narrative focused on public safety and punitive measures for theft and drug offenses, detractors are framing the coalition as driven by outdated approaches that do not consider the systemic issues contributing to crime. These contrasting narratives will be pivotal as voters approach the polls.
The success of Proposition 36 could have significant ramifications beyond California. As states across the nation grapple with their approaches to criminal justice, the outcome could set a precedent, potentially influencing similar initiatives elsewhere. Supporters of Prop 36 argue that a tougher stance on crime is necessary in the face of increasing retail theft and public fear. Critics counter that such measures are merely a reactionary response that fails to address underlying issues such as poverty, addiction, and mental health.
As the election date draws closer, it will be crucial for both sides to effectively communicate their messages to a potentially polarized electorate. The strategy adopted by these coalitions could ultimately determine the outcome of Prop 36 and affect the broader debate around crime and safety in California and beyond.
With fundraising, endorsements, and public perception evolving in real time, the Prop 36 campaign must quickly assess which strategies will resonate with voters. As more stakeholders evaluate their positions and reassess their alliances, the dynamic of the campaign could shift significantly, impacting both support and opposition efforts.
In conclusion, with public safety rekindling as a pressing voter concern, how Proposition 36 ultimately plays out may very well depend on the coalition's ability to navigate internal fractures and articulate a cohesive, compelling vision for California’s future. The next few months will be critical, not only for the fate of this one initiative but also for the future trajectory of crime policy discussions across the nation.
Ramin Sohrabi for TROIB News
However, one key element has been lacking: the once-strong coalition that initially propelled Prop 36 and emphasized law-and-order issues in California politics.
This initiative seeks to reverse a decade-old criminal justice reform by intensifying penalties for drug crimes and theft. It was crafted by a coalition of county district attorneys and large retail chains, such as Target, Home Depot, and Walmart, creating an ideal partnership in an arena where campaigns typically require vast sums of money to reach voters: retailers would provide the funding, while prosecutors would lend their policy expertise and political influence.
Yet, intense negotiations over a possible legislative compromise this summer have led some business interests to reconsider their alliance with prosecutors in the campaign to pass Prop 36.
These divisions threaten to undermine the solid position of one of the nation’s most scrutinized ballot measures as crime and public safety concerns resurface prominently among voters nationwide.
National chains and other business groups were receptive to offers from Gov. Gavin Newsom to address theft issues via compromise legislation; meanwhile, prosecutors remained firmly opposed to any deal. A pivotal moment in the discussions arose when private communications leaked to the media between the governor’s chief of staff and the California Attorney General’s Association, seemingly aimed at embarrassing Newsom, who is widely believed to have been targeted by the prosecutors.
The rift over policy priorities, political tactics, and conflicting personalities has weakened the coalition's unity. Some groups instrumental in getting Prop 36 on the ballot are now reassessing their commitment and considering whether they wish to continue their involvement.
“Some of the tactics that were used were unfortunate,” remarked Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Association, which was critical to Prop 36’s inception but is now contemplating withdrawing its support. “I think it was a huge missed opportunity … a lot of egos were involved, and to me, it was sad to see.”
While Democrats led by Newsom could not persuade the tough-on-crime coalition to retract its initiative, the governor's recent enactment of laws targeting retail theft, addressing many concerns shared by the initiative, has continued to widen the gulf between former allies of Prop 36.
“I know some probably have characterized us as maybe a little stubborn,” remarked Yes on 36 co-chair Greg Totten, who also heads the California District Attorneys Association. “But I take pretty strong issue with that. At the end of the day we were prepared to negotiate, but we wanted a package that actually fixed the problem.”
Some coalition members that initially funded the campaign, such as Target and Home Depot, have not contributed additional funding since the initiative qualified for the ballot. Others are being solicited by a rival pro-Prop 36 committee focusing on garnering moderate Democrat support. This new committee could present challenges in messaging and fundraising for the primary Yes on 36 effort.
Critics of the initiative see an opportunity to separate well-known retail brands from local politicians, whose records and motives may be easier targets.
“Once you strip away the retailers, their money and their messaging, what's left?” questioned Anthony York, spokesman for the No on 36 campaign. “It’s the same people who pushed three strikes legislation, who opposed Prop 47, it’s the same prison industrial complex that’s been behind this for decades.”
The coalition that initially supported Prop 36 was formed in response to the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, which had relaxed certain penalties as part of a broader criminal justice reform movement. Distrustful of these changes, district attorneys quickly sought ways to amend the laws.
In 2020, the California District Attorneys Association proposed Proposition 20 to address their concerns, aiming to reinforce penalties for select theft and fraud offenses and modify rules for parole. However, the measure was significantly outspent by opposition and was rejected by voters by more than 20 points.
Following that loss, the association underwent a leadership change. Totten, a former Ventura County DA, was tasked with rallying support against Prop 47, which he claimed would weaken public safety. He returned at a time when crime rates surged during the pandemic, creating a public perception of rampant shoplifting.
Under Totten’s leadership, the prosecutors sought to construct a broader coalition that included the retail sector, which had long urged legislative action on theft without success.
“We were all hearing from the business community about their frustration with theft and the lack of consequences,” Totten shared, noting that many businesses felt compelled to avoid calling the police due to futility.
The prosecutors aimed to engage large retailers struggling with theft during the pandemic by shifting the initiative’s focus to property crimes. This partnership provided considerably more financial backing than previous efforts.
The initiative was supported through the newly formed Californians for Safer Communities coalition, which managed to secure significant contributions from major retailers like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot, ultimately qualifying for the ballot.
However, the unity began to crumble when state Democrats pursued an agreement to assuage retailers’ concerns and bury the initiative.
Last year, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas established a select committee on retail theft, aimed at finding legislative solutions without needing a ballot measure. Retailers were optimistic about this potential compromise and began to distance themselves from the original Prop 36 backers.
Democratic lawmakers advanced a package of retail theft legislation aiming to create new felony categories and provide tools for law enforcement. While prosecutors maintained that a legislative solution wouldn’t address core issues, retailers began to support the bills, further straining the coalition.
Then, a story detailing email exchanges between Totten and the governor’s chief of staff emerged, revealing Totten’s rejection of a proposed two-year delay for the initiative—news that intensified tensions and dashed hopes for a compromise.
“We think this is so broad-based, that’s not going to happen very much — but I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see a few people do that. That’s just the nature of these kinds of issues,” said Totten, acknowledging the shifting landscape.
In mid-August, Newsom publicly demonstrated his backing for legislative solutions to theft by signing bills promoting tougher measures against organized retail crime. “The issue of organized retail theft, the issue of serial theft — [that is] the issue that is front and center in the consciousness of so many Californians,” he stated.
Democrats believed they had successfully created a division between initiative supporters and prosecutors, potentially diminishing the financial and political support for Prop 36. Retail groups that had previously taken an active role have now reduced their participation, with limited contributions coming in, aside from some notable donations from California tribes and smaller entities.
Totten maintains contact with major retailers, asserting that they remain involved members of the coalition, but a wave of disenchantment runs through the initial stakeholders of the proposal.
At the same time, a new pro-Prop 36 effort has emerged, focusing on gathering moderate Democrat support and presenting the initiative as a compassionate measure to address homelessness and drug addiction.
This growing movement could provide an angle for those hesitating to align with either Newsom or prosecutors, navigating their positions in light of the contentious California political landscape.As the campaign for Proposition 36 evolves, the landscape is becoming increasingly complex. The emergence of this new pro-Prop 36 committee, spearheaded by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho, and Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen, aims to unite moderate Democrats while framing the initiative as a humane approach to deal with California’s homelessness and drug crises.
This new coalition represents a strategic pivot, attempting to address the concerns that have arisen among key retail backers and the potential fallout from the initiative's original champions. By positioning Prop 36 as a solution to broader societal issues, this group hopes to rejuvenate support and reinvigorate donor interest, especially among those unsure of where to align their loyalties in light of the current rift.
In many ways, this situation reflects a broader trend in American politics, where public safety issues are often leveraged for both progressive and conservative agendas. The complexity of the issue means that groups with traditionally divergent views may find common ground in seeking effective solutions, even as they navigate the political terrain carefully.
Another critical factor at play is the larger dialogue around criminal justice reform. The outcry against rising crime rates during the pandemic resulted in renewed scrutiny of previous reforms, such as Proposition 47. The balance between supporting governmental efforts to address crime and maintaining a commitment to reforms aimed at reducing incarceration rates continues to be a contentious topic among voters.
The divergent strategies of the Prop 36 campaign and its opponents underscore this tension. While the campaign pursues a narrative focused on public safety and punitive measures for theft and drug offenses, detractors are framing the coalition as driven by outdated approaches that do not consider the systemic issues contributing to crime. These contrasting narratives will be pivotal as voters approach the polls.
The success of Proposition 36 could have significant ramifications beyond California. As states across the nation grapple with their approaches to criminal justice, the outcome could set a precedent, potentially influencing similar initiatives elsewhere. Supporters of Prop 36 argue that a tougher stance on crime is necessary in the face of increasing retail theft and public fear. Critics counter that such measures are merely a reactionary response that fails to address underlying issues such as poverty, addiction, and mental health.
As the election date draws closer, it will be crucial for both sides to effectively communicate their messages to a potentially polarized electorate. The strategy adopted by these coalitions could ultimately determine the outcome of Prop 36 and affect the broader debate around crime and safety in California and beyond.
With fundraising, endorsements, and public perception evolving in real time, the Prop 36 campaign must quickly assess which strategies will resonate with voters. As more stakeholders evaluate their positions and reassess their alliances, the dynamic of the campaign could shift significantly, impacting both support and opposition efforts.
In conclusion, with public safety rekindling as a pressing voter concern, how Proposition 36 ultimately plays out may very well depend on the coalition's ability to navigate internal fractures and articulate a cohesive, compelling vision for California’s future. The next few months will be critical, not only for the fate of this one initiative but also for the future trajectory of crime policy discussions across the nation.
Ramin Sohrabi for TROIB News
