As the 2024 election draws near, voters across states like California, Nevada, Massachusetts, and Colorado will face critical decisions that could reshape their criminal systems. For Know Your Rights Camp, this moment is about more than just casting a vote—it's about standing up for transformative change. Each proposition holds the potential to shift the course of justice and Know Your Rights Camp is here to guide you through what's at stake, from the pros and cons of each measure to the crucial information you should have before election day arrives.
California
PROPOSITION 036 : Drug and Theft Crimes Charges and Sentencing
Proposition 36 aims to revise certain elements of Proposition 47 (2014), including tougher sentencing for specific drug and theft crimes. It reclassifies some drug offenses as felonies and increases penalties for certain theft-related crimes.
Pros
Stronger Penalties: It aims to address the rise in serious drug crimes, such as fentanyl distribution, by increasing sentences and reclassifying certain offenses.
Crime Deterrent: Supporters argue it will hold repeat offenders more accountable and help reduce drug-related crime.
Focus on Treatment: The initiative mandates treatment for individuals convicted of drug-related offenses to address underlying issues like addiction.
Cons
Prison Overcrowding: Opponents argue that tougher sentencing will reverse progress made on reducing the prison population, especially affecting minority communities.
Loss of Funding for Programs: The state's savings from Proposition 47, which are allocated to mental health and drug treatment programs, may decrease, reducing resources for rehabilitative services.
Increased Criminalization: Critics argue that increasing penalties could exacerbate mass incarceration without effectively addressing the root causes of crime, like poverty and addiction.
Supporters
Organizations: California District Attorneys Association, California State Sheriffs' Association.
Political Figures: San Francisco Mayor London Breed (Nonpartisan), several state senators and representatives.
Corporations: Walmart, Target, Home Depot.
Opposition
Organizations: ACLU of Northern California, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, League of Women Voters of California.
Political Figures: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), several state representatives and senators.
Unions: California Federation of Teachers, SEIU California State Council.
Reasons for Support
Proponents argue that Proposition 36 will protect communities by holding repeat drug and theft offenders accountable, addressing the rise of serious drug crimes like fentanyl distribution. They believe it strengthens public safety by ensuring that individuals with multiple convictions receive stricter consequences.
Reasons for Opposition
Opponents believe Proposition 36 will reverse the progress made by Proposition 47, which reduced racial disparities in prison populations. They also argue that it reduces funding for rehabilitation and mental health services and could lead to overcrowding in California prisons.
Companies Supporting
Walmart, Target, and Home Depot have made significant contributions to support the initiative, along with other corporate donors like Walgreens and the California Business Roundtable.
Companies Opposing
The ACLU of Northern California, along with labor unions such as SEIU, is actively opposing Proposition 36, citing concerns about the impact on marginalized communities and the risk of increasing the prison population.
PROPOSITION 006 : Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Amendment
Proposition 6 seeks to amend the California Constitution to remove the use of involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, effectively banning forced labor for incarcerated individuals. It also allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to offer credits to prisoners who voluntarily participate in work assignments.
Pros
Abolishes Involuntary Servitude: Supporters argue this proposition will fully eliminate any form of involuntary servitude, aligning California with modern human rights standards.
Voluntary Work Participation: The proposition encourages incarcerated individuals to participate in work programs by offering credits rather than forcing labor.
Rehabilitation Focus: Advocates believe that allowing prisoners to choose work assignments will improve rehabilitation efforts and facilitate personal growth.
Cons
Potential Financial Impact: Critics warn that eliminating mandatory labor in prisons could increase state costs for prison management and services.
Less Accountability for Inmates: Opponents argue that removing the requirement for inmates to participate in work could reduce overall discipline and productivity within prisons.
Taxpayer Burden: Some fear that the proposition could shift the financial burden to taxpayers by requiring more state funding to cover increased operational costs.
Supporters
Organizations: ACLU of California, California Labor Federation, Anti-Recidivism Coalition.
Political Figures: State Senator Steven Bradford (D), Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D).
Media: The Sacramento Bee, Bay Area Reporter.
Opposition
Organizations: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Media: Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board, Bay Area News Group.
Reasons for Support
Proponents argue that involuntary servitude is an extension of slavery and should have no place in California's constitution. They also stress that voluntary work programs provide a more humane and effective means of rehabilitation for incarcerated individuals.
Reasons for Opposition
Opponents claim that mandatory work assignments for prisoners are a reasonable expectation and that removing this requirement could undermine discipline and increase costs for taxpayers. They also argue that prisoners should be required to contribute to the prison system in some capacity.
Companies Supporting
The campaign is financially backed by the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, All of Us or None Action Network, and several progressive organizations.
Companies Opposing
No major companies are listed as direct opposition to Proposition 6, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has voiced concern over its potential financial impact.
Colorado
PROPOSITION 128 : Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
Colorado Proposition 128 is aimed at altering parole eligibility for individuals convicted of specific violent crimes. The measure will require offenders convicted of certain violent offenses to serve at least 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole, and offenders with two prior violent crime convictions must serve their full sentence before parole eligibility.
Key Changes
Current Law: Currently, individuals convicted of specific violent crimes can apply for parole after serving 75% of their sentence, with additional reductions for good behavior.
Under Proposition 128: Offenders convicted of certain violent crimes committed after January 1, 2025, would have to serve 85% of their sentence without reductions for good behavior before being eligible for parole.
Repeat Offenders: Individuals with two prior violent crime convictions would be required to serve their full sentence without consideration for good behavior if the crime was committed after January 1, 2025.
Supporters
Organizations: Advance Colorado, Independence Institute.
Individuals: Michael Fields (R), President of Advance Colorado.
Arguments in Favor:
Supporters argue the measure ensures violent criminals serve more of their sentence, enhancing public safety.
They highlight that currently, violent offenders serve only 43% of their sentence on average in Colorado, which they believe is too lenient.
Opponents
Organizations: ACLU of Colorado, Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition.
Individuals: Taylor Pendergrass, ACLU Colorado Director of Advocacy.
Arguments Against:
Opponents argue that Proposition 128 will unnecessarily increase the prison population and burden taxpayers without providing a public safety benefit.
They believe the current system effectively assesses when individuals can be safely released and that extending prison terms for violent crimes will not deter crime or improve outcomes.
Campaign Finance
As of the most recent reports, no committees have registered in support of the measure.
The opposition committee, Coloradans for Smart Justice, has raised over $100,000, with the ACLU contributing a significant portion.
AMENDMENT I : No Right to Bail in First-Degree Murder Cases
Colorado Amendment I is a constitutional amendment that seeks to remove the right to bail in cases of first-degree murder when the evidence is substantial, or the presumption of guilt is strong.
Key Points
Current Law: Under Colorado's constitution, individuals have the right to bail in most criminal cases unless the crime is classified as a capital offense or involves certain violent crimes.
Amendment I's Changes: The amendment will make first-degree murder an unbailable offense when the evidence or presumption is clear. This means that defendants accused of first-degree murder will not be eligible for bail under these conditions.
Background
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that first-degree murder could no longer be classified as a capital offense for denying bail, as the state repealed the death penalty in 2020. This decision opened the possibility for defendants in first-degree murder cases to be granted bail, prompting lawmakers to propose Amendment I to close this loophole.
Supporters
Officials: Gov. Jared Polis (D), State Sen. Rhonda Fields (D), and State Rep. Monica Duran (D) are among the supporters.
Arguments: Proponents argue that first-degree murder defendants should not have the option of bail due to the severity of the crime. They claim that removing bail in these cases protects public safety and ensures that dangerous individuals are kept in custody while awaiting trial.
Opponents
Officials: State Rep. Javier Mabrey (D) opposes the amendment.
Arguments: Opponents raise concerns about the potential for this amendment to undermine the presumption of innocence. They argue that denying bail could send the wrong message to juries and the public about a defendant's guilt before a trial has even begun.
Nevada
QUESTION 004 : Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution
Summary of Nevada Question 4
Nevada Question 4 is a constitutional amendment on the November 5, 2024, ballot. It aims to remove language from the Nevada Constitution that currently allows the use of slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes.
Key Points
Current Law: The Nevada Constitution permits slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments.
Amendment's Goal: If approved, the amendment would remove this exception, ensuring that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude is allowed under any circumstances in the state of Nevada.
Background
This measure follows a national movement to remove similar provisions from state constitutions. Between 2016 and 2022, eight states held nine ballot measures on this issue, with most voters approving the removal of such language. Colorado and Louisiana initially rejected similar measures, but Colorado voters later passed a revised version in 2018.
Eight other states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, still have constitutions that allow slavery or involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes.
Supporters
Officials: State Sen. Dallas Harris (D), State Sen. Patricia Spearman (D), and State Asm. Howard Watts III (D).
Organizations: ACLU of Nevada and the Abolish Slavery National Network support this amendment.
Arguments: Supporters argue that it is time for Nevada to remove this outdated language, ensuring no one will experience state-sanctioned slavery or servitude again.
Opponents
As of now, no official campaign or arguments against the measure have been identified.
Conclusion
A "yes" vote on Nevada Question 4 would remove the allowance of slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments, bringing Nevada's constitution in line with modern human rights standards. A "no" vote would maintain the current language, which allows these practices as a form of punishment for crimes.
Arizona
PROPOSITION 311 : Financial Benefit Upon Death of a First Responder
Arizona Proposition 311 is a ballot measure set for the November 5, 2024, election. This proposition would establish a $20 fee on every criminal conviction to fund a benefit of $250,000 for the surviving spouse or children of a first responder killed in the line of duty.
Key Points
New Fee: A $20 fee would be imposed on every criminal conviction in Arizona. Fees collected would go into a state supplemental benefit fund.
Benefit for Families: The fund would provide a $250,000 death benefit to the family of any first responder killed in the line of duty.
Other Uses: If the fund exceeds $2 million, the excess can be used for officer training, equipment, and other purposes.
Increased Penalties: The proposition would also increase criminal penalties for aggravated assault against first responders. It changes some penalties to higher felony classes, depending on the injury and crime.
Background
The federal Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program already provides $422,035 for families of officers who die in the line of duty. Arizona's pension system also provides a survivor benefit for families of police, firefighters, and corrections officers.
Supporters
Key Individuals: State Sen. David Gowan (R) and Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio.
Organizations: The measure is supported by the Back the Blue campaign.
Arguments: Supporters argue that the $250,000 benefit is a necessary support for families who lose a loved one in service, helping them financially through a difficult time.
Opposition
Key Individuals: State Sen. Lela Alston (D) and Tucson Mayor Regina Romero (D).
Organizations: ACLU of Arizona.
Arguments: Opponents argue the additional fees would disproportionately affect certain populations. They suggest funding the benefit directly from the general fund instead of adding more fines to the legal system.
PROPOSITION 313: Life Imprisonment for Child Sex Trafficking
Arizona Proposition 313 will be voted on in the November 5, 2024, election. It proposes mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole or release for anyone convicted of child sex trafficking.
Key Points
Life Sentence for Child Sex Trafficking: This measure would require anyone convicted of child sex trafficking to receive a life sentence without parole. This applies to Class 2 felony charges related to the trafficking of minors.
Current Law: Arizona law currently imposes a range of sentences for child sex trafficking. A first-time offender faces 10 to 24 years if the victim is aged 15 to 17. For trafficking children under 15, offenders can receive a minimum of 13 years up to life.
Arguments For
Supporters: State Rep. Selina Bliss and organizations like the Center for Arizona Policy back the measure.
Main Argument: Proponents argue this sends a strong message that Arizona will not tolerate the sale and exploitation of children. The mandatory life sentence reflects the severity of the crime.
Arguments Against
Opponents: Opponents include State Sen. Mitzi Epstein and organizations like the Arizona National Organization for Women.
Main Argument: Critics believe the measure is too harsh and could harm victims who may have been coerced into trafficking situations themselves. They argue it could send vulnerable teenagers, who are also victims, to prison for life.
Massachusetts
QUESTION 004: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances
Massachusetts Question 4, to be voted on November 5, 2024, would regulate the legalization and use of natural psychedelic substances for individuals 21 years or older.
Key Points
Regulated Psychedelic Use: A new Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and Advisory Board would be created to oversee licensing and regulations of psychedelic substances and services, which could include licensed therapy centers and facilitator services.
Personal Use: Adults 21 and older could grow, possess, and use certain psychedelic substances (e.g., psilocybin, mescaline, ibogaine) within specified limits, such as growing these substances in a secured 12x12-foot area at home.
Taxation: A 15% excise tax would apply to sales at licensed facilities, with local governments having the option to add an additional 2% tax.
Path to the Ballot
The initiative was placed on the ballot through an indirectly initiated state statute, requiring no action by the state legislature.
Arguments For
Supporters: The campaign is led by Massachusetts for Mental Health Options and supported by organizations like Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the New Approach Advocacy Fund.
Key Argument: Proponents argue that psychedelics have therapeutic potential for treating mental health conditions such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety, especially for veterans and others facing treatment-resistant conditions.
Arguments Against
Opponents: The Coalition for Safe Communities leads the opposition, with concerns raised by public safety advocates and some mental health professionals.
Key Argument: Opponents express concerns that the measure moves too quickly, potentially leading to increased public safety risks, like driving under the influence or accidental consumption by children.
Comments