Police patrol outside the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, home of the Colorado Supreme Court, in Denver. Voters in Colorado and two other states embraced measures earlier this month that reflect a get-tough approach to crime. (Chet Strange/Getty Images)
The outcomes of seven ballot measures in Arizona, California and Colorado reflect the stricter approach to crime that’s been seen across much of the country recently, with voters and policymakers driven by concerns over rising retail theft, homelessness, fentanyl misuse and challenges in police recruitment and retention.
Voters have decided in recent years that they prefer to adopt progressive changes to the criminal justice system “somewhat less aggressively,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist and a political communications professor at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley.
“Voters are always course correctors. They’re always adjusting and readjusting, trying to calibrate policy exactly the way they want it,” Schnur said. “It’s not uncommon for them to try to pull back on a reform effort that they think might be going too far.”
This year, local and state leaders in blue and red states — including California, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont — shifted away from more liberal initiatives aimed at reining in police powers and reimagining criminal legal systems. They have instead embraced harsher penalties for offenses such as retail theft and possession or distribution of certain hard drugs, added more felony and misdemeanor offenses requiring cash bail, and moved to prohibit local governments from altering police traffic stop policies.
Then this month, voters in Arizona, California and Colorado overwhelmingly backed ballot measures to increase prison time for certain crimes, revoke bail for others and crack down on illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
While national crime data is notoriously difficult to track and understand, violent crime and property crime across the United States decreased in 2023, continuing a downward trend since the higher crime rates of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the FBI’s latest national crime report. Still, some individual cities and neighborhoods might be seeing higher crime rates, which could explain Americans’ views on the issue.
Opinions on crime in the United States have improved over the past year, according to Gallup’s annual crime survey. Fewer people compared with last year believe national crime has increased or consider crime an “extremely” or “very” serious problem — but a majority of U.S. adults, 56%, still do.
Perceptions are heavily influenced by political affiliation, the survey showed. While 60% of Democrats believe crime has gone down over the past year, 90% of Republicans think it has increased.
Rethinking theft and drug crimes
In California, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, a measure that increases penalties for specific drug-related and theft crimes and that also reclassifies certain drug offenses as “treatment-mandated felonies.” This reclassification will allow judges to impose mental health or drug treatment requirements. Those who complete treatment would have their charges dismissed, while those who fail to meet the requirements could face up to three years in prison.
“It’s not the hope or the intention to send a bunch of people to jail or prison who are using drugs. The goal is to incentivize people to engage in treatment again,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, one of the measure’s authors, in an interview with Stateline.
The measure aims to address issues such as retail theft, homelessness, substance use disorders and fentanyl distribution, Reisig said.
Under the new law, people convicted of theft at least twice may face felony charges on their third offense, regardless of the stolen item’s value. Additionally, those caught distributing fentanyl while armed with a loaded firearm will now face felony charges and up to four years in prison. Previously, possessing fentanyl and a loaded firearm was punishable by up to one year in jail.
“Our strong belief is that this will send a deterrent message to others that there are consequences again,” Reisig said.
The measure also received substantial support from law enforcement agencies across the state, although it remains unclear how departments might adjust their enforcement policies. Still, Reisig said, the measure will provide law enforcement with “some real, meaningful tools” to address specific crimes.
“With options for increased sentencing and mandated treatment, Prop. 36 could provide tools to address repeat offenses more effectively,” Sacramento Police spokesperson Sgt. Dan Wiseman wrote in an email to Stateline.
Proposition 36 partially reverses some changes made in 2014 by another ballot measure, Proposition 47, that reduced certain theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors to address prison overcrowding. But Reisig said that this is not a complete rollback.
“It was drafted to be more down the middle and just kind of bring the pendulum back to center mass,” he said. “We’re not reinventing the wheel. We’re just bringing back something that had proven success, and I think all of California is going to benefit.”
But some Democrats and criminal justice advocacy groups have argued that the measure could reintroduce drug war policies and result in longer prison sentences.
California voters also rejected Proposition 6 by a close margin, 53%-47%. The measure would have amended the state constitution to prohibit forcing inmates into labor as punishment. The proposal originated from a state task force examining whether California should provide reparations to Black residents.
In contrast, voters in more conservative states such as Alabama and Tennessee have approved measures in recent elections to abolish involuntary servitude in their prisons. In a similar effort, Nevada voters this year approved a measure repealing constitutional language that permitted slavery and involuntary servitude as forms of criminal punishment.
Schnur said Proposition 6 could have been rejected in part because California voters might have carried anti-criminal sentiment over from one ballot measure to the other.
“Because Prop 36 passed by such a large margin, it’s entirely possible that many voters were already thinking in a more restrictive way about criminal justice policy, and those feelings may have moved over into their vote against Prop 6,” Schnur said.
Restricting bail, recruiting police
In Colorado, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the state legislature that makes first-degree murder suspects ineligible for bail if prosecutors can demonstrate a strong enough case.
Previously, the state constitution allowed only people charged with “capital offenses” to be denied bail. This change restores bail policies that were in place before Colorado repealed the death penalty in 2020.
Voters are always course correctors. They’re always adjusting and readjusting, trying to calibrate policy exactly the way they want it.
– Dan Schnur, former Republican strategist in California
Voters also backed a pair of measures placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign led by Advance Colorado, a conservative political group.
One measure requires people convicted of certain violent crimes, including second-degree murder, aggravated robbery and sexual assault, to serve at least 85% of their sentence — up from the previous 75% — before becoming eligible for parole.
The other ballot measure directs the legislature to allocate $350 million from the state’s general fund to help local law enforcement agencies hire additional officers, provide training and bonus pay, and establish a $1 million death benefit for the families of first responders — including police, firefighters and EMTs — killed in the line of duty.
The approval of that measure could deepen Colorado’s $1 billion budget deficit, though the financial impact will depend on how quickly lawmakers implement the program. Since the measure does not specify a timeline, legislators may choose to allocate the funds gradually rather than all at once in the next budget year, according to Kristi Burton Brown, Advance Colorado’s executive vice president.
Linking illegal immigration and fentanyl
Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed two criminal justice measures this year: One mandates life imprisonment for people convicted of child sex trafficking; the other goes after both illegal immigration and the sale of fentanyl not made in the United States.
Proposition 314 grants law enforcement the authority to arrest noncitizens who do not have legal authorization to enter or live in the United States. The law specifically targets people attempting to enter or who have entered Arizona outside official ports of entry.
This measure expands police powers to address illegal immigration at the state level. Under Proposition 314, unauthorized entry into Arizona will become a Class 1 misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses. The measure also allows state judges to order deportations.
However, portions of the law cannot take effect until a court — likely the U.S. Supreme Court — rules on the constitutionality of a similar law in Texas. If the Texas law is upheld and remains enforceable for at least 60 days, Arizona’s law could then go into effect. The law now is awaiting an appeals court decision, which is expected to itself be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter the ruling.
And the measure adds a new state felony penalty for selling fentanyl manufactured outside the country that results in another person’s death.
Some critics argue that it could lead to racial profiling and heightened community tensions, while supporters claim it will bolster border security and reduce crimes linked to illegal immigration.
Immigration enforcement is usually a federal responsibility, and some critics also have raised concerns about the additional financial and operational burden local law enforcement agencies may face.
Some local police departments contacted by Stateline were unsure of how the measure would be enforced, noting that they are waiting for further direction from state officials.
The Phoenix Police Department said in an email to Stateline that it would continue its current enforcement practices, which prohibit officers from asking about immigration status during traffic stops unless required by state law and consensual contacts with the public, according to department spokesperson Sgt. Mayra Reeson.
Under existing policies, Phoenix officers may only transport people to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they are wanted for a criminal immigration violation and have no pending state criminal charges, or if the person has only a civil immigration violation, which includes being in the country without legal authorization, and consents to the transport.
The ACLU of Arizona has vowed to explore all options to block the implementation of Proposition 314, calling it unconstitutional and harmful.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.