What's Next, Los Angeles? with Mike Bonin
Los Angeles is at a turning point. We are living in a defining moment. What happens next is up to us. Over the past few years, problems and challenges have shaken this city -- and tremendous opportunities for change have presented themselves. How do we rise to this moment and emerge a better place to live? What will it take to create a more just and a more equitable community? Working together, how are we going to create a stronger, forward-thinking Los Angeles? Mike Bonin, writer, teacher, progressive activist and former City Councilmember, looks at the issues and problems facing Los Angeles, examines ideas, and talks with the people who will lead us to a brighter future.
Produced in partnership with LA Forward.
What's Next, Los Angeles? with Mike Bonin
Prop 36: Justice in the Balance
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Is Prop 36 -- the most talked about proposition on the ballot -- a return to an era of law and order? or a backslide to an era of mass incarceration? That’s what we discuss on this episode of What's Next, Los Angeles, with my guests, former state Assemblymember Mike Gatto, in favor of the proposition, and State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a vocal opponent Prop 36.
Official Ballot entry: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/36/
Ballotpedia breakdown: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024)
CalMatters explainer: https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2024/propositions/prop-36-crime-penalties/
Yes on 36 campaign: https://voteyesprop36.com/
No on 36 campaign: https://www.stopprop36.com/
LA Times - No on 36: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-09-22/editorial-proposition36-no-fills-prison-war-on-drugs
LA Forward Comprehensive Progressive Voter Guide: https://www.laforward.org/voterguide
Sen. Lola Smallwood Cuevas: https://lolaforca.com/, https://sd28.senate.ca.gov/
Mike Gatto: https://mikegatto.com/
Noir by Necessity, by Mike Gatto: https://www.amazon.com/Noir-Necessity-Fathers-Unsolved-Murder/dp/1685133819
What's Next, Los Angeles? is produced and hosted by Mike Bonin, in partnership with LA Forward.
Is Proposition 36 a return to an era of law and order? Or is it a return to an era of mass incarceration? That's what we discuss today on What's Next, Los Angeles. Hi everybody and welcome. It's Mike Bonn and thank you so much for joining me. Today we talk about Proposition 36. The Yes on 36 campaign says California is facing a crime and drug addiction crisis. They warn of what they call a continued explosion of smash and grabs, serial retail thefts, fentanyl use, and fatal drug overdoses. They push a law and order message and say California needs tougher penalties for theft and drugs and to require drug treatment as a sentence. The No on 36 campaign, on the other hand, says it reignites the failed war on drugs and wastes tens of millions of dollars on jails and prisons, while at the same time slashing crucial funding for victim services, crime prevention, drug treatment, and rehabilitation. They warn that it will reverse crucial and successful criminal justice reforms. It is a fierce debate and a complex one. Today we're going to talk with former Assemblymember Mike Gotto, who supports Prop 36, and then with Senator Lola Smallwood Quavas, who opposes it. First, a little bit of context and then a primer on precisely what Prop 36 would do. To understand Prop 36, the first thing you need to know about is another proposition passed by voters back in 2016. It was put on the ballot by criminal justice reformers. It reduced some charges for nonviolent drug and property crime from felonies to misdemeanors. And it reallocated the money that had been spent on prisons to programs for mental health, substance abuse prevention, and victim services. Voters approved Prop 47 by enormous margins. And what the impact has been of Prop 47 is central to the debate over this year's Proposition 36. Let me say that again. The impact of Prop 47, what that has been, is central to the debate over this year's Proposition 36. The people behind Prop 36, police, prosecutors, big box retailers, they hate Proposition 47, and they think it has been a public policy disaster, and it has led to an epidemic of crime, drugs, and homelessness. The people against Proposition 36 say Prop 47 has been successful in creating funds for the programs that prevent crime, drugs, and homelessness. So here is precisely what Prop 36 would do. And this is from the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office. One, it turns some misdemeanors into felonies, lengthens some felony sentences, and requires some felonies be served in state prison instead of county jail, mostly thefts and drug trafficking. Two, it allows some people who possess illegal drugs to be charged with a treatment-mandated felony instead of being charged with a misdemeanor. And three, it requires courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone. Supporters of Proposition 36 include Walmart, Target, Home Depot, the California District Attorneys Association, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Republican Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, and a number of Democrats, including Mayors London Breed of San Francisco, Matt Mahan of San Jose, and Todd Gloria of San Diego. Opponents of Proposition 36 include U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, Governor Gavin Newsom, Speaker Robert Revis, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, the Alliance for Safety and Justice, the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters of California, the Los Angeles Times, and many others. My first guest today is a Democrat who supports Prop 36. Mike Gotto represented Los Angeles in the State Assembly from 2010 to 2016. In 2019, he tried to push a ballot initiative that would have mandated drug and mental health treatment. It became a template for Governor Gavin Newsom's care court. In 2013, while he was still in the legislature, Mike's father, 78-year-old Joseph Gotto, was murdered by an intruder in his Silver Lake home. The case remains unsolved. Mike references that case in this interview. And you have been, although you've been out of the legislature for a number of years, you have stayed uh heavily engaged with a lot of public matters, uh, public safety being one of them. Uh so really interested in your perspective on this. I know you're in favor of Prop 36. So let's start by asking, what problem are advocates of Prop 36 trying to solve?
SPEAKER_01So I think it solves three problems, Mike. And those are um in no particular order. It's going to help with the homelessness challenges that we have because it would enable people who need treatment to get that treatment. Um, there's a big debate over what percentage of the homeless population is suffering from an addiction. And I try not to get into that. I just know that it's a significant number. And I would submit that we as society owes it to them to try to get them into treatment wherever we can. Next, it would also solve a problem that really didn't exist 10 years ago, which is the fentanyl problem. And that is obviously a very powerful drug. It's one of these synthetic opiates, and very tiny amounts of it can be poisonous. And, you know, you often have people who just go to, you know, they go to a club, they want a party, or they they are doing something with some people from their school, and they take a pill that they're not aware has fentanyl in it, and they end up dying. And so, you know, this that's a problem that also needs to be addressed. And thirdly, it would try to do something about retail theft. Um, retail theft or you know, sort of brazen retail theft, the serial retail theft is something that has been in the news a lot lately. People conceive that it uh contributes to a sense of lawlessness in our society and also that it hurts a lot of small businesses when they are the ones that are most often suffering from it. So those are the three problems that I think Prop 36 would try to solve.
SPEAKER_02And tell me, from your perspective, particularly as a former legislature, what does Prop 36 do that addresses those problems?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so it would create a new type of crime that's called a treatment mandated felony. And this is a crime where, you know, if you're an offender that's in possession of multiple hard drugs multiple times, it would give a judge the option of saying, hey, you should do your sentence in a treatment facility. And to me, that's much better than what we used to do, which is throwing them in state prison and then they leave as a hardened criminal, and then they've got this on their record and everything on the record. This would create an expungible way to get them into treatment. Thing that I have uh very much been in favor of for quite some time. Uh, the the way it would try to address the fentanyl crisis is it would impose stricter penalties on the traffickers, on the the dealers who are moving big amounts of fentanyl. Would it also give them, you know, some say it's it's significant. I, you know, I I don't know if it is, but it would it would admonish dealers that if someone dies uh from fentanyl that they sold and it can be traced to them, that they can be tried for manslaughter. And finally, on the serial retail theft issue, it would classify like the really big repeat offenders, the the people who who you know come continue to just go into store after store after store multiple, multiple times. It would classify those crimes as a wobbler and it would give DAs the ability to charge them with a felony if they thought it was appropriate. So I think those are some pretty modest but important steps to try to address those problems.
SPEAKER_02Uh a lot of folks who talk about this issue uh talk about it in a way that they sort of almost tabloid headline language about you know apocalyptic circumstances in California, uh uh crime is spiraling. You you very clearly spoke about it in a different frame. Um, how is your perspective different than than some of the others who frame it?
SPEAKER_01Well, I have been in politics a long time. I know you have too, and I remember various eras. You know, when I was a kid, we had this lock them all up and throw away the key. And it was just so far in that direction. And then I feel like in the last five or six years, it's kind of gone the other direction. We reacted so strongly as societies often do, to the mass incarceration of the past by saying, well, you know, we should we should be as lenient as possible. And I would submit that what if the question we should be answering, or what if the question we should be asking all the people who talk in apocalyptic terms, is what if it's neither? What if, what if, I mean, like we're all intelligent people, we believe in nuance. What if the simple answer is that an intelligent person can believe that in the past we were way too harsh on people who committed minor crimes, particularly drug crimes, and that we imprisoned a lot of people, especially young men from a lot of certain communities that should not have been in prison? But what if you can also believe, too, that, you know, we shouldn't have a guy who comes here and saves his money and, you know, opens a convenience store and now he's making, well, he's losing money every year because he's plagued by retail theft. And what if we also believe that we could use the power of government to get people help who need help because they've got a drug problem and they don't have a support system? I think you can believe in both. I don't think it has to be one or the other.
SPEAKER_02So there's a lot of uh opponents of Prop 36, most notably a lot of members of the legislative black caucus who say that Prop uh 36 goes too far and actually does return us back to those 90s-era war on drugs that will lead to disproportionate incarceration of people of color, particularly blacks. How do you respond?
SPEAKER_01I would respond two ways. The the the the first way is, first of all, I mean, Prop 36 does really what it does is it creates wobblers. And these are things that what for people in the audience who don't know, I assume a lot of people do, but a wobbler is a charge that can be either a misdemeanor or a felony. So there's nothing automatic about it. It doesn't mean that individuals will be charged automatically with felonies, but it gives judges and prosecutors the discretion to use that if it's a really egregious case. When it's a really egregious case, because of the still, you know, uh very differentiated nature of our society, that person is often plaguing on a community of color. That the criminals who are taking advantage of people, they're not, you know, storming the fences in Beverly Hills. They're preying in many cases on immigrant communities and communities of color. And so I would submit that it helps to give prosecutors a tool if someone is being really, really bad in those communities to help those communities get that person off the streets. Secondly, I would also submit that if somebody has got a drug problem and does not have a support system, it is also a good thing for a judge to give that person a chance to get their life right. And how a judge can do that is by saying, hey, young man or young woman, I can charge you as a felony, I can, or we could, we could, we could sentence you as a felon, we could sentence you as a misdemeanor. How about we sentence you to rehab? And you agree that this is something that you will do. Having that, even the LA Times has editorialized that the the passage of Prop 47 took basically did away with drug courts because there was no stick that judges had to do that. And then finally, I mean, you know, I mean, courts get to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense. And I believe that our court system has really taken great strides to being more fair. It's not perfect, but I think that um, you know, it's going, you know, if if someone gets caught trafficking, you know, pounds and pounds of fentanyl and, you know, some kids died because of it. I mean, you know, I think that person should go to jail or prison.
SPEAKER_02Uh let me uh bring up and have you address a couple of the other criticisms of of Prop 36. One is from Governor Newsom. You know, he's he in the legislature have done a package of 12 or 13 bills that they say address the issue of retail theft and the fentanyl. Uh Governor Newsom recently was criticizing the the drug treatment component of Prop 36, saying that it it put out a promise of a promise of mental health treatment, but uh provided no money for it. And he noted that there's uh uh residential treatment facilities in only uh half of L uh California's counties. So how does that work?
SPEAKER_01That is that statement, you know, I I know the governor well. Our time in Sacramento overlapped. You know, he's he's still on speed on my phone. I respect him, but I'm not sure how accurate that statement is because we in California have had for years special taxes and special funds in the state budget that go toward these programs that are needed. And at my suggestion, the governor was somebody who augmented these funds and tried to develop some of the things that I suggested a few years ago, like care court and things like that. We also have done steps, I want to say it was toward the end of my tenure, where we took some funds that had been only dedicated toward mental health facility construction, and we said, we're constructing plenty of facilities, why don't we use some of it for treatment as well? I think you know, the power of the purse still lies with the legislature and it lies with Mr. Newsom. And if they believe that this is something that we need to prioritize, and I think everybody does, everybody can, I mean, even in a statement was wrapped up something saying, well, this is a good concept, but there's not money in this proposition, well, then the legislature and the governor can appropriate it. I mean, that's a very, very simple solution.
SPEAKER_02So then the question is, where does the money come from? And one of the things that the uh the legislative analyst did in the official uh ballot booklet that they send out, which I just got the other day, uh, they noted that because Prop 47 reduced prison population and that the savings from that then went into social programs, mental health and drug treatment, that 36 by uh imprisoning more people will actually reduce the amount of money that the state has for mental health, drug treatment, K-12 schools, and money for crime victims.
SPEAKER_01That is one of the most loaded statements that I've heard in a long time. I believe the LAO's analysis has been thoroughly debunked. Even the legislature, when it had hearings on several of the bill packages that went through this year, and several of the editorial boards have noted that that analysis was not accurate. The estimates, you know, it's fascinating because the the opponents of this will sort of speak out of both sides of their mouth. They'll say, Well, it's really not going to do anything. It's only going to put this tiny number of people behind prison, like the worst, the worst fentanyl traffickers. And then they'll say, Oh my God, but it's going to cost so much. I mean, I I, you know, I think that that is a large misconception. And it really comes down to when I think voters need to, what voters need to consider for this, which is what is the appropriate role of government. Everybody I know, whether they're on the right or the left, believes that the core thing that a government does is to keep its residents safe. That is something that, you know, it's it's often the very first thing that's implicit in every constitution, in every democracy. And that is something that that I believe applies here. And it might not apply here how people think. People think when I say keep people safe, that I'm just talking about the people who are victims of crime. But I'm not. I'm also talking about the person who needs treatment. And let me explain that to you. Because this is the most important concept, I think, for this proposition and for some of the other things that I've articulated. If you take two young men, um, you take a rich kid and you take a poor kid. The rich kid, when you know, when if he's hungry, you know, if if if he goes off to college and he's hungry, he goes back home to mom and dad, and mom and dad feed him or give him money for food. If he wants money to to, or if he just needs money, you know, mom and dad or some rich uncle will give him that money. Uh when he wants to go to college, mom and dad or you know, his trust fund or something pay for it. And when that rich kid does something that is probably bad for his life, makes a poor choice, gets addicted to drugs, his family, his support system will often stage intervention. They will sit him down, and those of us who've participated in this know, they'll sit him down and they'll say, Hey, listen, you are going down the wrong path. You should not be doing this. That is a key part of his support system. But what we believe, and I know you believe this too, is that for the people in society that are not born with that type of circumstances, it is the role of government to step in where they can. That is why we have CalFresh, what people call food stamps. If someone's hungry, the society steps forward and gives that person food. That's the right thing to do. That's the humane thing to do. If someone needs money and they're they're totally indigent, we have we have social safety net programs, what people call welfare, right? The third thing is we we've taken great strides in both of our lifetime, where if someone cannot afford college, society steps in and pays for college. We passed the middle class scholarship when I was in the legislature. This has been something that very few people disagree with now. I submit that the fourth step is also very important. If there's somebody who has no social safety support structure in their life, they do not have a family who talks to them anymore, or they don't have a family locally, or their family is dead, or their family is incarcerated, who is going to step in and give that person the intervention? Who's gonna do it? I submit the system has to do it somehow too. And that's why to me it is so important that when somebody needs help or they need treatment, that I believe it's the role of government to get that person before a judge. It's not gonna be perfect. But Mike, if we can get 30% of people to say, oh my gosh, I've hit rock bottom. This judge is offering me a chance to go to treatment, paid for by the government. I'm gonna take it up. And maybe that person relapses and maybe they have to do it again. But we will have saved those people. And that is government keeping people safe. And it's and I, and again, I'm not talking about when people talk about safety, oh, it's it's the people who are getting robbed and blah, blah. I'm talking about both. I think that is the appropriate role of government.
SPEAKER_02But let me ask for, let's talk for a few minutes about the retail theft aspect of this, because that's really sort of driven a lot of the public attention over this. Uh for years now, folks in law enforcement, cops, prosecutors have been uh bemoaning Prop 47. And this was billed as a at least a partial rollback of Prop 47 um to address things like the the notorious smash and grabs we see on TV, or you go into a drugstore and everything's locked up. Yeah. Um Prop 47 came before, but just because something came before doesn't mean it was the cause of what came later. What's what's the the the proven connection between Prop 47 and any increase in retail theft?
SPEAKER_01Great question. I'm and I was hoping you would ask that. Um the criminal justice system is complicated, and I think viewers, if they think about or listeners when they when they think about it, will will walk, will, will indulge me in walking through the whole the steps when you um when a crime occurs. When a crime occurs, right, you you typically call 911. Then you know the the the dispatcher or the dispatch decides, do they send a squad car? When the police arrive, the police has to make a decision, do they take a report? When they take the report home or back to the station, they have to decide whether or not they open a case. They have to decide whether or not to make an arrest. Then there's a decision, do we charge the person that we arrested? Then there's a decision, do we plea to something less? And then there's the the you know, the decision the court makes, which is do they convict that person? So it's eight steps. And what I what I encourage on both sides of the debate is tremendous caution when people talk about causation and all these different things. Because, you know, I've heard people who oppose this ballot measure say crime is down, crime is down everywhere. And and uh what they're talking about is convictions are down. And that's step eight, right? And what you're seeing a lot, I think, you know, and and I think the statistics bear me out on this, is that people are not. Calling 911 as much as they used to. In some jurisdictions, the police are just not dispatching a car, police are refusing to take a report. They're saying, Well, when I take the person downtown, it'll be out before I do anything. You know, you have very prominent cases of you know DAs not wanting to prosecute people for certain things. So it's hard to get good statistics. It's hard to get good statistics that we can talk about when we talk about Prop 47. What I do know though is that I don't think that the people are wrong on this. I, you know, I mean, you saw the poll that Prop 36 is pulling at 71%. There's a tremendous amount of both anecdotal and I do believe statistical evidence that backs up the fact that we just seem to have gone too far, Mike. We we just, you know, I was talking to folks the other day, and I know nobody has sympathy for someone who owns a 7-Eleven, but what people don't know is that the 7-Elevens are not owned by some corporate giant, they're owned by a family. You know, almost it's something like 90-something percent are owned by immigrant families. And in many cases, they spent their whole nest egg on that one store. And you're you're you're telling people who, you know, made maybe 10% on their money in previous years, it's a low margin business, much like grocery. And you're telling them now, well, you know, you've lost money for the last five years, and you're imagining this. This isn't a consequence of whatever. I mean, whether it is a result of Prop 47 or whether it's a result of something else, I would submit that Prop 36 is the fix.
SPEAKER_02So I think people may have a lot of sympathy for the 7-Eleven owner. I think they probably don't have a lot of sympathy for Walmart or Target, the big companies that are funding 36. A lot of those companies have been the subject of class action suits over wage theft, which is numerically a much larger number than the than retail theft. Uh, and a lot of the critics of 36 will say, listen, these big big box stores, they're cutting back on employees. They're not hiring security, they're automating the checkouts. So they're actually creating an environment where it's easier for people to shoplift, and then they they want to punish people um for their lack of action.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so so that's another great question. So and I'll try to unpack it because there's many different things that you said in there. So, first of all, um, you know, I mean, you're you're talking to someone who had a hundred percent voting record with organized labor for my seven years in the state legislature. I hate self-checkouts. I am so personally insulted that, like when I go to the store, they took away someone's job and they're forcing me to do the work, right? Like that, and in many cases, these grocery jobs are good jobs. They're they're good union jobs that pay really good money. But I got to take issue with something you said. It is not the big retailers who are funding Prop 36. As a matter of fact, there was a big spat in the Capitol where a lot of the retailers broke ranks and left, and they wanted to try to cut some sort of backroom deal with the governor. The people who are funding Prop 36, I mean, people like me, uh, you know, a lot of small contributors, um, the the 7-Eleven owners, a lot of them are funding Prop 36. Parents who lost a kid to fentanyl, they're funding Prop 36. There's a lot of money coming from a lot of places, it's not just big box retailers. But again, you know, when we we've talked throughout the entire podcast, and this is an important point that I want the theme continues. If your local target is the victim of repeated retail thefts, yeah, all right. But that might be the attitude that some people have, you know. But again, when a shopper has to go to their local target, and now everything is behind a glass wall, and you've got to page somebody to buy, you know, intimate cleaning products or something that you might be a little embarrassed to buy, that's not how life should be. And again, no matter what you say about, well, it's oh, it's some big corporation. Yeah, all right. But there are other people who suffer, and there's just a sense of lawlessness at that local store.
SPEAKER_02Anything that we haven't talked about that you'd like to bring up about this?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean, I'll tell a um I'll tell a story from my own life to personalize things a little bit. And you know, it's something that it was very difficult at the time, and it was not something that it was even pleasant to talk about. But but I do think there's a point to it in a weird way. So, you know, there might be some people listening who who know that my dad was killed in a home invasion robbery um almost 11 years ago. The crime is still unsolved. Um, it was really tough. It was it was really tough on my family. Um, these things are always tough. But one of the toughest conversations that I had was when I um, you know, I had had, I want to say two sleepless nights in a row. And we had driven down from Sacramento. We had to meet the the police who are investigating it at the crime scene, which was my dad's home, my childhood home. And we were sitting there when just kind of talking about the case in riffing, and the the the cops who did not have a good bedside manner, they said something like, Ah, well, you know, uh the person who committed this crime is likely one of the people that you folks in Sacramento let out of prison or let out of jail or would otherwise be in jail. And I mean, it was an awful thing to say, right? I mean, like, God, you talk about clueless, right? And it's something that to this day fills me with rage. It's something that's very hard for me to talk about. Uh but you know, it's also something that's that's hard to hear, right? Because when you are a policymaker, the policies you make do have real-world effect. And that really drove it home as corny and cliche that has. And I also believe that in my dad's case, it might be something that is proven to have some kernel of truth. You know, in my dad's case, we do know that whoever did it was not a was not somebody who was in the system before. I, you know, I people who want greater details can get into it, but but I guess what I'm trying to say is whoever killed my dad was probably a petty criminal. And sometimes petty criminals can graduate to do something that is much, much, much, much worse. And I do believe when there is a culture of lawlessness, uh when there is a certain tolerance of lawlessness, I'm not saying broken windows theory, but I am saying that when we give a message that you're not gonna get into trouble for this, and then you're not gonna get into trouble for this, and then you're not gonna get into trouble for this, um, and you go greater up the scale or the staircase of crime, at some point, the worst of the worst crimes, people have an attitude that they're not gonna get in trouble for that. I really do believe that again, it was tough to hear. Cops are jerks, but there might be a kernel of truth to that.
SPEAKER_02And and I should mention you you tell that story in in great detail in uh a book you published this year, NWAR by necessity, which uh is your your your memoir and accounting of of of that horrible chapter in your life. Um I know you didn't come on here to sort of sell books, but uh No, no, not at all. But it's um uh I I think it's a it's an important read for people to to understand how the system works. I mean, there's some really horrifying details, not only of in the the the heinous crime that took your dad's life, but in the way the system worked or did not work in in addressing that. Um, how can people uh find the book?
SPEAKER_01Oh, the book is on Amazon. Um, if they look it up under my name, they'll find it pretty easily. Um, one of the messages that that's in the book, of course, is um how imperfect our justice system is. I mean, um, and that's another point that I'm trying to give when we talk about this, right? Is nuance. It's it's so important to have nuance. Um we should be suspicious of anybody who paints things in you know, these these dire opposites. Um, our criminal justice system is so nuanced. Uh one of the things that I certainly learned is that if the system treats me so poorly, I mean, you know, at the time this happened, I was chair of appropriations and, you know, arguably the third or fourth most powerful person in the state. Um, and if the system treats me so poorly, you imagine how they are treating people who are not well connected. I mean, that is something that to this day haunts me. It is something that is just so awful. And um, you know, for for just about every crime, there's a victim. And it's just um, you know, it's just something to keep in mind when people cast their votes.
SPEAKER_02Uh I will include in the show notes links on how people can find out more about uh Prop 36, but uh you're still active and engaged. How can people uh follow what you're up to?
SPEAKER_01People can always contact me on my website, mikegotto.com. Um, you know, when I was in the legislature, I got the most emails of anybody in the legislature, and that's because I was silly enough to answer each and every one of them. So if you send me a note, um, you know, just at mike at mic.comicgotto.com. That's my personal email address. I'm happy to hear from you, and um I will try to send you an answer.
SPEAKER_02All right, Mike Gotto, thank you so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. Some of the strongest voices of opposition to Prop 36 have come from the California Legislative Black Caucus. That's the black members of the California Senate and Assembly. They say 36 will lead to the overpolicing of underserved communities and incarcerate Californians like during the 1980s war on drugs. Joining me now to urge a no vote on Prop 36 is State Senator Lola Smallwood Cuevas. She represents the 28th District, which stretches from South Los Angeles to the west side of Los Angeles. Uh Senator Lola Smallwood Cuevas, thanks for joining me on What's Next Los Angeles.
SPEAKER_00Thank you for having me, Mr. Bonin. How are you?
SPEAKER_02I I am doing great. It is so good to have you. Um you've been uh really engaged in a lot of issues, and uh uh what there's been a huge, huge fight over um uh criminal justice and punishment and reimagining public safety in Sacramento that has manifested itself in a lot of ways. Uh, and one of them is this measure on the ballot in November, Proposition 36. Its official ballot title is uh The Increase Drug and Theft Penalties and Reduce Homelessness Initiative. Um you are an opponent to Prop 36. Uh, tell me why.
SPEAKER_00I am, and thank you so much for lifting up this issue and the No I'm 36 uh campaign, which is so robust and exciting and so diverse. Uh, because at the end of the day, um we know that incarceration, um, the state spending disproportionate numbers of dollars on incarcerating our communities is not a sustainable way to address um issues like crime. Um I think one of the things that uh Prop 36 uh note on 36 reminds us is the work that we have done together, both legislatures, and I want to lift up the California state legislature. I want to lift up the hundreds, if not thousands, of community-based organizations that worked to reform California's incarceral system. We were the incarceral capital of the country and recognized that it was not sustainable from a rehabilitation standpoint, and it was not sustainable from a fiscal standpoint. And we said that when people have not committed uh violent crimes, when they have committed crimes that are, you know, substance abuse disorder driven, that instead of putting them away for years and years and years, you know, costing the taxpayers um enormous exorbitant amounts of money and extracting from our state budgets, you know, that we should make sure that we are reducing those kinds of nonviolent um crimes into misdemeanors and sending folks into communities where they can build skills, um, find get their educational needs met, um, find good careers, and move them from a column of deficit into one of positive contribution. And we have done that. And that's why crime, and particularly violent crime, is so low in our state today. And Prop 36 would reverse California's gains. It would reverse them. Um we have seen our prison population drop since 2014 to 28%, with complete reduction in the ways in which our communities, and when I say our, I think about my district, the 28th district, which represents South Central Los Angeles and Mar Vista, a drop in just the racial disparities of black and brown um bodies behind bars. You know, we were intentional about finding smart solutions. Um Prop 36 is gonna take us back. It's gonna take us back. It's gonna take us away from the evidence-driven solutions that are working in the state, and we just cannot go back. And that's why we have to be no uh on Prop 36.
SPEAKER_02So the yes on Prop 36, folks would say California has tried to do the kind of things you're talking about, and they will say it's backfired, crime is out of control. They'll talk about smash and grab robberies, uh uh uh fentanyl, uh, and and folks who don't get prosecuted anymore. Uh what's the what's what's the counter to that?
SPEAKER_00The counter to that is that this last session, the state legislature passed dozens of bills, dozens of bills, crime bills, that enhanced time for individuals who were involved in things like shoplifting or smash and grab. Uh, we uh in addition created more access and expansions of care courts. We created programs that helped divert folks who were involved in some of these nonviolent property theft and shoplifting. So we have done the this state legislature. I don't think there's been a legislature in in a few years, I would say probably a decade or more, that have passed uh such a high level of crime bills to address this issue. And I want to say an issue really um that did not come from my communities. I represent South Central Los Angeles, and I can't remember, and I and I've had a series of coffees across my district, and I probably could count on less than one hand how many folks said crime is our number one issue. And I'm not saying that there are not communities that are experiencing crime, but retail theft did not rise, at least amongst my constituents, to that level. And these are communities that are living in uh neighborhoods that have been disinvested in, that have been um de-industrialized, where there are no resources. And so if those communities can be focused on things that really address crime, like making sure we have quality schools, making sure folks have access to healthcare, making sure folks have housing and food access, those constituents who are most impacted say that is what makes their communities safer. And so, you know, to have this narrative that our cities and communities are melting down and not look at the evidence is really a travesty. And that's why we have to say no on 36. We have to continue to do the things that really make our communities uh safer. Uh and, you know, we've got to make sure that we hold folks accountable. And certainly the legislature, the legislature did that with these crime bills that just recently passed. Um, but we also have to make sure that our retailers also are about addressing things like retail theft. And I want to talk a little bit about a bill that I had that would have said where there is 16 times more retail theft, um, which happens at self-checkout, you know, that retailers address the self-checkout and make sure that customers have real support in the stores when they're shopping to make sure the self-checkout is adequately staffed. So we can reduce the fact that $10 billion walks out of a store through theft at self-checkout. And do you know what the retailer said to me? They said, we have absolutely no responsibility for that. Um, that the crime bills putting people in prison will address that. We don't have a responsibility to dress the shrinkage and the theft that is happening at our self-checkout, where workers are not safe and where customers and consumers, you know, are frustrated. And so that just tells me why we have to say no on 36, because our communities can't really bear the only burden for trying to fix crimes of poverty in our community. It has to be all of us. This 36 proposition is another attempt of these major stores to skirt the blame, to scapegoat our communities, and unfortunately to put the taxpayers on the hook for more incarceration for nonviolent uh crimes, um, for individuals who need help and safety net and not prison. So we have to say no on 36. We have to join the broad coalition of organizations that are standing with the no on 36 campaign because we will not, we will not go back to cutting mental health services, cutting um our trauma recovery, cutting our K through 12 programs to feed a carceral system that's gonna put people in jail for nonviolent felonies that should really be misdemeanors and where we know diversion, job training, and education will make a difference. So we are absolutely gonna stand up on no on 36 and calling on so many of the folks listening out there to do the same.
SPEAKER_02The the campaign on behalf of 36 has been interesting. It sort of has uh two messages depending on who the audience is. There's the uh we need to get tough on crime, we need to uh stop being uh so permissive, we need to sentence people longer. But then to another audience, they talk about how this is getting about about getting people mental health treatment. This is about homelessness, which you know, they even have it in the in the title of the initiative. Um what's the the truth about what this really is?
SPEAKER_00The truth is this is about cutting our programs, it's about feeding the carceral system, and it's about ignoring the evidence that shows what actually reduces crime. Um, you know, we are about making sure that the evidence that has brought us to a point where violent crimes are down at record numbers, that we continue to do, to do that work. And, you know, this oftentimes propositions, um, this yes on 36, a bunch of trickery. And it's been trickery since the beginning of, you know, last year when this conversation began. Um it began with retailers who are price gouging, it began with retailers who are overcharging consumers, um, engaging in price gouging and not taking responsibility for what is happening around retail theft. And that is, you know, in my instance of just looking at the research, you know, retail theft is largely an issue of things like self-checkout. But the industry doesn't want to be accountable to that. Instead, they would rather um have the taxpayer, you know, cut vital services, um, take away uh the opportunity for individuals to be able to get do their time and to come home and to get access to training and education. Um and so we just cannot uh fall into the hoodwinking, the trickery. Um, and we need to look at who's behind this. You know, when I look at police and sheriffs, you know, they have an interest. Um, you know, this this carceral system, this surveillance system, this policing system cost our cities and and and counties and residents billions of dollars. I think uh when uh we were organizing with a Black Worker Center and we were looking at what the city was spending on job creation and enforcement of labor laws, it was sort of 1%. Um and when you looked at police and and and what we were paying for police services. It was almost half of the budget. So, you know, there's self-interest in these groups that are behind this 36 that has nothing to do about making sure that we have a long-term solution and a transformation of our communities into safe places. And what makes their community safe is not more police over there surveillant, surveilling their communities, not, you know, over-incarceration out of their zip codes. It's actually having wealth. It's actually having careers. It's actually having good schools. It's actually having a home and a roof over your head and your basic needs met. And so, you know, I think Californians and LA County in particular, we aren't going to fall for that okey doke of law and order. It didn't work then. It's certainly not going to work now. And quite honestly, California cannot afford it.
SPEAKER_02We've spoken in this discussion about Prop 36, sort of generally. And you've sort of framed the case against Prop 36 as a package. Are there particular things, or what are some particular things about it that are the are the core of it being problematic?
SPEAKER_00It just further puts away people who commit nonviolent crimes in our prison system. And that is disproportionately black and Latino. It's increasingly female. And as the conversation on retail theft has focused, you know, on harsher criminal penalties, and we have already done that work in the legislature. And that is economic disparities and homelessness and unemployment, which drive the crimes that the proponents of 36 are talking about. Yet this initiative would reverse the investment in the programs and in the opportunity for individuals to come home, uh, to be able to get quality work, to be able to have access to programs that help them stay out of prison and puts them on a pathway of self-sufficiency. So, you know, amending Prop 47, which is what we all work so hard to pass, and in the time of IPS enactment has made a huge difference in the ways in which our community has access to resources and violent crime is down. So, you know, I think that we have California has done enough. I think we have, you know, and I encourage your listeners to look at the dozen, two dozen or so bills that passed between the assembly uh and uh the Senate this year that created more prison time, that created more jail time for, you know, uh retail theft and shoplifting, um, that created more opportunity for folks to engage in drug treatment and diversion programs. Um, we have done the work. We do not need Prop 36, and we do not need to amend uh Prop 47. Uh, and I want to just add um one other caveat here as we look at the proponents of 36. You know, the legislature, I've been in the legislature two years, but the legislature before I got there invested millions into funding to encourage police departments, sheriff's departments across the state to come up with creative ways to address retail theft. And do you know a significant portion of those dollars were unspent, not accessed, not used. Um, when we when I had the opportunity to talk with some of our transit officials about crime on the rail, you know, the police are called, but folks were not arrested. Um, so you know, what we all have a role to play in this whole conversation about retail theft and nonviolent crime. It does not all fall on poor black and brown communities who are easy to scapegoat and easy to incarcerate. But California, it is not easy to undo because we are in already in a budget deficit. And so once we start re-incarcerating and feeding the beast of incarceration, our state will suffer more. So let's let 20, the work that we did together in 2014 stand. And let's instead invest money into building what really makes our community safe for all of us: real education, real health care, real jobs training and career training programs, real uh substance abuse disorder treatment, homelessness programs. Let's put our money into that rather than begin to put our money into an incarceral system. And that's why we are no on Prop 36.
SPEAKER_02One last question before we wrap it up. Uh, you've mentioned a few times the big broad coalition that is no on 36. Who makes up that coalition?
SPEAKER_00Well, you have groups like La Fenza, you have groups, uh, you have a number of unions supporting, you have the California Black Power Network, you have Dream Beyond Boars, the Ella Baker Center, um, Smart Justice, the Prosecutors Alliance. You have a number of organizations that are standing with, and I will not list the long, long list of legislators and community leaders, um, public officials who are also standing with uh the no on 36 campaign. So it is a broad coalition, um, and it's one uh that we know um really stands for understanding what our communities need to be safe and doubling down on that by saying no on 36, and let's begin to put resources into the things that we know will work and do work.
SPEAKER_02Senator Smallwood Quuevas, thanks for joining me.
SPEAKER_00Thank you so much, Mike Bonin. It's always a pleasure to be with you.
SPEAKER_02My thanks to Senator Smallwood Quevus and Assemblymember Gato for joining me today. If you would like more information on this or other ballot propositions, I have helpful links in the show notes, including to the official Secretary of State Voter Guide, the official ballot arguments, and other resources, including this year's Progressive Voter Guide from LA Forward. You can check it all out in the show notes. That does it for this episode of What's Next Los Angeles. My thanks to Marta Ivery for sound editing, my thanks to LA Forward for partnering with me on this program, and as always, my thanks to you for listening. Until next time, take good care and peace.