California voters solidly approved Proposition 36, the ballot measure aimed at toughening penalties for serial burglary and fentanyl trafficking, with positive results in numerous polls leading up to Election Day. 70 percent support for the initiative.

Preliminary results showed a nearly 3-to-1 margin of support, and when The Associated Press called the race just before 9 p.m. Tuesday, the initiative mirrored its own polling with 70% of the vote in yes.

“The passage of Proposition 36 reflects Californians’ strong desire for safer communities and meaningful solutions to our state’s growing crises of crime, drug addiction, and homelessness,” reads a statement from the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign. “Tomorrow, we will focus on implementing Proposition 36 in collaboration with local and state agencies and elected leaders to ensure the will of the voters is carried out and begin working to restore safety in our communities across California.”

Recommendation 36 It was designed as a response to growing public frustration with organized retail theft and serial shoplifting, which has become highly visible since the pandemic through viral videos on social media and ubiquitous media coverage. The measure also targets fentanyl trafficking and possession, which represent the deadliest aspects of the national opioid epidemic.

The initiative amends the state criminal code to allow prosecutors to exceed the $950 threshold that distinguishes between petty theft (a misdemeanor) and grand theft (a felony). This distinction is important because an arrest for a felony usually entails tighter pursuit in court and the possibility of a higher prison sentence, whereas a misdemeanor usually ends with arraignment and on-the-spot release.

Supporters of the initiative argued that current policies leave law enforcement toothless at pursuing serial burglaries, arguing that as long as the theft is below the threshold, criminals can stay out of jail and court with impunity. The amendment would make any theft a felony if the offender has two or more prior theft convictions.

Under Proposition 36, fentanyl-related crimes would be subject to tougher penalties, including mandatory prison sentences for those convicted of selling fentanyl and other hard drugs while armed and possible murder charges if the drugs they sold led to an overdose death. Additionally, those arrested for possession of fentanyl and similarly classified drugs would be eligible for “treatment-requiring” felony charges, which would place them in a new drug court infrastructure and give them the option of entering rehab — having their charges dismissed once completed — or serving up to three years in prison.

The changes to penalties for theft and drug crimes marked a rollback of part of Proposition 47, a 2014 voter-approved law that set the monetary threshold and reclassified low-level theft and drug charges from felonies to misdemeanors. Proponents of this initiativeincluding the state’s leading civil rights groups and Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff RosenHe says California’s decision to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision and shift crimes resulting from homelessness and drug addiction to rehabilitation and mental health treatment rather than incarceration has helped reduce its prison population.

And meanwhile Proposition 36’s official title mentions homelessnessThere is no provision in the ballot box language that directly addresses the issue. The architects of the new law argued that a large number of theft and drug crimes stem from homelessness, so responding more aggressively to these crimes would take significant numbers of homeless people off the streets and into treatment and rehabilitation programs.

It is not yet known how the changes will be paid for: Proposition 36 does not include any funding sources for the changes it aims to implement. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office said in an analysis of the bill that the new law would increase state costs by “several tens of millions of dollars” to “low hundreds of millions of dollars” through increased prison populations.

Critics say this underscores an understated impact of the new law: the erosion of revenue from mental health and drug treatment programs depends on the amount of savings the state gets from diverting people from prison.

Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice and one of the leaders of the No on 36 campaign, said voters were “relying on false promises” in registering their support for the initiative.

“Supporters argue that Proposition 36 would reduce property crimes by forcing more people to choose between treatment and incarceration. They made this pledge with full awareness of the statewide shortage of treatment beds and the lifelong disabilities that come with a felony conviction,” Hollins said. “Now Proposition 36 will divert billions of dollars away from the same programs that treat addiction and mental illness. This will ultimately increase recidivism.” and is a callous bait and switch that will create more crime victims.”

If Proposition 36 works as intended and adds an influx of people to the treatment pipeline, questions about the state’s rehabilitation capacity will also remain. Supporters and critics have argued over whether there are enough treatment beds to handle even the current influx of people lining up for court-ordered treatment; There is already gridlock in the state’s largest counties, meaning people are clearly being held in jail because there is no room for them.