A state assembly bill, AB 2108, which Yuba-Sutter law enforcement leaders argued would have altered the intent of Proposition 36 and increased crime in the area, stalled in the Appropriations Committee earlier this week. The bill will not move forward for the remainder of this year, according to state records.
Yuba County District Attorney Clint Curry expressed his gratitude for the decision to hold the bill, stating it would have created an expensive diversion program and compromised efforts to hold thieves accountable under Proposition 36. Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes also shared his satisfaction, noting that the bill was problematic and would have undermined Proposition 36, which voters implemented. The Sheriff added, "Californians want accountability."
Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), the author of AB 2108, had advocated for the bill, asserting it would strengthen California’s crime diversion measures. Sharp-Collins stated that the bill aimed to provide opportunities for rehabilitation and accountability by creating pathways into vocational and apprenticeship programs to help individuals exit poverty and reduce retail theft. She also argued for diversion programs for crimes committed out of necessity, linked to poverty.
Conversely, Sheriff Barnes stated that the bill would have prohibited qualifying theft offenses from becoming prior convictions necessary for establishing repeat-offender status, thereby making it substantially more difficult to utilize the accountability framework approved by voters. He emphasized that retail theft is not a victimless crime, impacting employees, small businesses, consumers, and neighborhoods experiencing theft-related crimes statewide.
Proposition 36 was supported by California voters in November 2024, changing some misdemeanor charges into felonies with higher bail and increasing the likelihood of jail time for suspects. Critics of AB 2108 contended that the bill was based on principles similar to Propositions 47 and 57, whose implementation coincided with a rise in property crime. Many voters who reportedly supported Proposition 36 just two years ago did so as a rejection of both Proposition 47 and Proposition 57.
Despite calls from public safety and law enforcement leaders, Governor Gavin Newsom has refused to include direct funding for Proposition 36 in the state budget. Sheriff Barnes stated that the state should properly fund Proposition 36 and respect the will of the voters rather than create workarounds that undermine the law. District Attorney Curry added that staying engaged and making voices heard is important to remind politicians in Sacramento of the community’s desire for common-sense accountability for crime. The bill’s halt means it will not be considered further in the current legislative year.
