Ballot Measures
Amends Sentencing Guidelines For Repeat Property Crime Offenses And Increases Funding For Rehabilitation Programs
Election
November 2026 California General Election
(Nov 3, 2026)
Jurisdiction
State • California
Election Type
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
Source Disclaimer
Source Disclaimer
The information on this page — including summaries, "what your vote means" explanations, and arguments for and against each measure — is drawn directly from official State, County, or City election materials, such as the Official Voter Information Guide and county election offices, and is presented here for informational purposes only. Any opinions expressed on this site are clearly marked as Editorial and are distinct from this official source material. Links to outside websites are provided solely as a convenience for further research; SAJ Studios does not create, edit, or verify that third-party content, and each linked source is solely responsible for the accuracy and views expressed on its own site. We encourage voters to consult their official county elections office or the Secretary of State for the most current and authoritative information before voting.
Summary
Increases penalties for repeat theft and property crime offenses, allows prosecutors to charge certain repeat offenses as felonies, and directs a portion of resulting savings and fines toward rehabilitation, job training, and mental health treatment programs.
Fiscal Impact
Increased state and county costs for incarceration in the tens of millions of dollars annually, partially offset by new funding allocations for treatment and rehabilitation programs.
What Your Vote Means
A YES vote increases penalties for repeat theft and property crime offenses, allows prosecutors to charge certain repeat offenses as felonies, and directs a share of resulting savings and fines to rehabilitation, job training, and mental health treatment programs.
A NO vote keeps current sentencing guidelines for property crime offenses in place, without the proposed felony charging option or the associated new funding stream for rehabilitation and treatment programs.
Arguments
Supporters argue repeat property crime has increased retail theft and harmed small businesses, and that stronger consequences paired with treatment funding will deter crime while addressing root causes.
Opponents argue increased incarceration disproportionately affects low-income communities, that prior sentencing reforms should be given time to work, and that treatment funding should not depend on increased prosecutions.
Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Full Legal Text
Waiting for text...
Further Reading
No additional links at this time.
Election Results
No Results Yet