# 2014 California Proposition 47

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.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
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
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
2024 sp
2028
2030
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
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
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive 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
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
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
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
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
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles 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
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
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
2024
2028
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
2025
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
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. 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
* Possession of most illegal drugs, below a certain threshold of weight
The proposition was partly repealed by Proposition 36 in 2024.

## Effects

In 2010, the California Legislature adopted AB 2372, which made most thefts of a value under $950 misdemeanors, increasing the threshold from $400, which had been in effect since 1982. This was done to keep the definition of felony theft consistent, while adjusting for the effects of inflation. Proposition 47 confirmed this action of the Legislature, and applied it to a few thefts which had not been addressed by the Legislature, primarily auto theft and the theft of some agricultural products. The measure also converted other nonviolent offenses, such as drug offenses, from felonies to misdemeanors.
The measure 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."
The measure included exceptions for offenses involving more than $950 and criminals with records including violence or sex offenses. For example, forgery had previously been a "wobbler" offense that could be charged by the prosecutor as a misdemeanor, or a felony. After the passage of Proposition 47, prosecutors cannot charge a forgery involving less than $950 as a felony, unless the defendant has a prior criminal record.
Proposition 47 was introduced to address prison overcrowding, adopt alternative sentencing methods, and reduce nonviolent offense incarcerations. It reclassified specific offenses – including some theft offenses not previously addressed in AB2372 and certain drug-related charges – as misdemeanors, rather than felonies. It did not eliminate the prosecution of these offenses. Prior to the adoption of AB2372 and the proposition, many instances of shoplifting were treated as misdemeanors. Since most shoplifting cases involve amounts under $400, the enforcement approach did not significantly alter prosecutions before or after the law's enactment.
Proposition 47 affects future convictions, and allows for people currently incarcerated for crimes covered by the measure to petition for re-sentencing.
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.
The provision allowing past offenders to petition for resentencing would have expired on November 4, 2017. Governor Jerry Brown approved a bill that extended the deadline to November 4, 2022.
Contrary to a misconception that circulated on social media, it did not make thefts under $950 no longer criminal offenses, nor would such thefts be left unpunished. To address concerns about organized retail theft, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2021 that increased flexibility for prosecutors; the legislation permits organized retail theft to be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, allowing tailored responses to the issue.

## 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. It was 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." The American Civil Liberties Union supported the measure, and donated $3.5 million to support it.
Prominent individual supporters included Jay-Z and Newt Gingrich.

## 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". 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".
Among the most prominent arguments made against the law was that possession of the date-rape drug Rohypnol would, like possession of other drugs, be punished as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which critics described as a "slap on the wrist". 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.
Efforts are underway to counteract the unintended consequences brought about by Proposition 47. Assemblyman Jim Cooper and Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert advocate for Assembly Bill 16, a ballot initiative to resolve some of these negative effects. If the bill gathers sufficient support, Californian voters can amend the law. This proposed initiative suggests that individuals convicted of a third theft involving property valued at $250 could face felony charges. California's business community has criticized the state's criminal justice policies, particularly Proposition 47, which reclassified certain crimes, like theft of items under $950, from felonies to misdemeanors. (This is based upon a continuing misunderstanding of the effect of Prop. 47. Should the proposition be repealed, the change made by the Legislature in 2010 would still be in effect.) They claim that this adjustment has led to an increase in repeated shoplifting offenses, creating a crisis for retailers, since the adoption of Prop. 47. (Significantly, no such claim was made after the adoption of AB2372 several years prior.) Business leaders believe that the lenient approach has encouraged shoplifters and drug addicts to commit crimes with minimal consequences.
Democratic Assemblymember Rudy Salas of Bakersfield introduced a bill to reverse a significant aspect of Prop. 47 by lowering the felony threshold for petty theft and shoplifting back to $400. Salas argues that Prop. 47's weakening of theft laws has triggered unintended consequences, and believes California voters are prepared to address this issue. Salas's move contrasts with the perspectives of prominent Democrats like Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who have downplayed the connection between Prop 47 and the surge in organized retail crime. Salas's bill could resonate with GOP voters, many of whom attribute the rise in theft and crime to Prop. 47. Responding to Salas's bill, Republican state lawmakers proposed repealing Proposition 47, highlighting the ongoing debate and division surrounding the measure's impact on crime and public safety.

## 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." 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.
In a 2015 story in The Washington Post, the police chief of San Diego, Shelley Zimmerman, 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 fliers" – people who exploit Proposition 47 to commit crimes. For example, one criminal allegedly brought a calculator into a store to avoid stealing more than $950 worth of goods. The ACLU responded by releasing a report saying that those who linked Proposition 47 and crime were "making irresponsible and inaccurate statements."
In November 2015, the director of the Stanford Justice Advocacy Project and co-author of Proposition 47, Michael Romano, said that with respect to Proposition 47, "In the long term, this reallocation of resources should significantly improve public safety". Romano authored a study supporting his conclusion.
A March 2016 report released by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, concluded that it was still too early to determine whether Proposition 47 had an effect on California's crime rates.
A June 2018 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found evidence that Proposition 47 may have contributed toward an uptick in larceny and auto break-in thefts.$^{:2}$ The study indicates it found a decline in recidivism and no evidence of an increase in violent crime linked to Proposition 47.$^{:2}$
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 1970 to 2015, in New York, Nevada, Michigan and New Jersey, states that closely matched California's crime trends, but that "what the measure did do was cause less harm and suffering to those charged with crime."
Numerous media outlets have continued to report an increase in retail theft related to the passage of Prop 47. In 2016, large retailers Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies reported that shoplifting increased, by from 15% to as much as over 50% in some cases, since voters approved Proposition 47. In 2017, the Los Angeles Times reported that the California Supreme Court ruled that a person convicted of a felony for stealing a car may have that conviction reduced to a misdemeanor if the vehicle was worth no more than $950. In 2018, researchers found that Prop 47 contributed to a jump in car burglaries, shoplifting and other thefts. In 2018, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop. 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate by about 9 percent, compared to the 2014 rate.
By 2019, organized retail theft was on the rise. Police and store owners attributed it to Prop 47.
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, violent crime in California rose by 5.7% between 2021 and 2022.
Advocates of Proposition 47 underscored the importance of reallocating funds from incarceration to community-based treatment initiatives to decrease the likelihood of reoffending. Prop 47 dictates that 65% of the financial savings achieved by the state be directed toward mental health and substance use disorder treatment for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. The remaining funds are divided among K–12 schools (25%) and victim services (10%). The initial transfer of savings occurred in 2016, and the programs funded by these grants are relatively recent, making it unlikely for them to have had an immediate impact on recidivism rates.
These grant programs are administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), specifically focusing on mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, and interventions before an individual's arrest or booking into a jail facility. Public agencies are responsible for submitting grant applications. A minimum of half the funds must be allocated to non-governmental community-based organizations. These grants provided by the BSCC span three years, with approximately $104 million distributed from June 2017 to August 2020.
Diverse projects have been funded across various counties, targeting different age groups, types of offenses, and stages within the criminal justice process. These programs involve collaboration between multiple organizations. Although they currently serve a relatively modest number of individuals annually, successful initiatives have the potential to be expanded in the future.

## Efforts to reform or repeal

In 2020, Proposition 20 was put on the ballot which, among other changes, would have given prosecutors the ability to charge certain thefts as felonies again. It failed with 38% of the vote.
In November 2024, Proposition 36, called the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, was placed on the ballot. "2024 California Proposition 36 would undo some of Proposition 47's reduced sentencing, such as theft of items worth $950 or less by a person with two or more past convictions would become a felony under Proposition 36 but is currently a misdemeanor.". It passed with 69% of the vote.