Guest Commentary written by

Michelle Parris

Michelle Parris is the director of the Vera Institute of Justices California office and a program director at Vera Action.

This week, criminal justice reform in California appeared to suffer several blows.

California passed Proposition 36 — a tough-on-crime measure that imposes harsher sentences on low-level offenses like drug possession — and reform-oriented district attorneys in Los Angeles and Oakland lost their races.

Many are asking: Is the movement for criminal justice reform in California dead? The answer is no.

At Vera Action, where I coordinate our California justice work, we’ve conducted public polling to learn what Californians want from their elected officials. Time and again, our polling shows that voters consistently want policies that will establish safety and justice in their communities — not fearmongering.

Californians want to ensure there is treatment for addiction, address the housing crisis and make our state more affordable for all.

These preferences are reflected in the election results. In California and beyond, voters supported measures that prevent crime before it can happen and keep our communities safe. Measure A, which will fund much-needed housing and homeless services in Los Angeles, is poised to pass. And two former public defenders running for Los Angeles County Superior Court, as part of The Defenders of Justice’s effort to strengthen services that address the root causes of crime — not just harshly punish — will likely join the bench.

So if Californians support reform, why did so many vote for Prop. 36?

Californians are struggling with soaring cost of living, increased homelessness, overdose deaths and concerns about crime. Voters are understandably worried and frustrated that elected leaders are not doing enough. Years of relentless “if it bleeds, it leads” media coverage of crime only raised voter anxieties. And too often, elected officials who support criminal justice reform stay silent on crime or parrot tough-on-crime rhetoric.

Those conditions are ripe for exploitation and misinformation.

The special interests groups’ misleading message about Prop. 36 broke through because of the sheer amount of money and force behind it. Companies like Home Depot and Walmart, as well as prison lobby groups, poured in nearly $17 million — while the coalition opposing Prop. 36 had less than half of that haul. The proponents of Proposition 36 peddled lies that promised “mass treatment,” while it will actually slash funding for those very programs.

Voters do want these services and programs, especially for people struggling with addiction. When Million Voters Project canvassers contacted over 200,000 California voters and told them Prop. 36 would actually decrease funding for effective crime and homelessness prevention programs, more than two-thirds said they opposed the proposition. But that message wasn’t able to break through because of the scale of misleading information and the uneven playing field.

Results like the judicial races in Los Angeles show that when the playing field is even and voters hear we can have both safety and justice, they choose reform over incarceration.

Now, California must face the impending harms of this criminal justice backlash and fight for what people so clearly want and deserve: crime prevention programs, more access to mental health care and drug treatment, and housing they can afford.

Voters are asking elected officials for real solutions to crime, homelessness and the overdose crisis — not mass incarceration. If they don’t hear about real solutions, special interest groups will keep using criminal justice reform as a scapegoat.