Alameda County splits over Proposition 36; board votes to remain neutral on county position

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors held a lengthy debate Tuesday over Item 65, which asked the board whether to take positions on several statewide ballot measures. The clearest result: the board voted to take no position on Item 65B — the county’s formal stance on Proposition 36 — after competing testimony from the county public defender, the sheriff and community groups.

Supervisor Carson moved that the board oppose Prop 36; several members and numerous community speakers argued the measure would return to more punitive sentencing, reduce funding for programs created by Proposition 47 and likely shift costs to counties. Alameda County’s public defender testified that Prop 36 would likely increase criminal justice spending at state and county levels and identified a range of estimated fiscal impacts: nationwide and statewide estimates were cited in public comment and the LAO’s analysis was referenced as projecting tens to low hundreds of millions in increased state criminal costs and tens of millions in county costs.

The sheriff testified in favor of Proposition 36, saying it gives judges and prosecutors more options and can mandate treatment as an alternative to incarceration, and called for more community treatment capacity. "What Prop 36 does is it gives options to the judges as far as plea deals and sentencing, and it mandates treatment for substance abuse," the sheriff told the board.

After discussion the board considered a substitute motion limited to 65B to take no position on Proposition 36; the substitute motion passed by roll call (three ayes, two nos). The board separately agreed to support Item 65A (a measure to provide permanent funding for Medi‑Cal/Medi‑Cal‑related health services) and oppose Item 65C (proposed fiscal‑year cuts to social services and labor/health programs). The motion on items A and C passed on a recorded roll call vote with all present supervisors voting in favor.

What was on the record: the county public defender warned that 22 counties have no residential treatment beds, that mandated treatment without funding would likely lead to increased incarceration, and that Prop 36’s enacted language contains treatment mandates without dedicated treatment funding. Proponents of the measure argued it would hold repeat offenders accountable and provide incentives to complete treatment programs when beds are available.

Next steps: the board’s official positions will be reflected in the minutes and the county’s formal endorsements/oppositions record. Advocates on both sides encouraged supervisors to continue outreach to constituents about the measure's impacts and funding gaps.