Prop. 1 opponents say it’s ‘likely to pass’ in close race. Why Gavin Newsom is counting on it

The current vote count for Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 1 remains deadlocked, but opponents on Tuesday conceded the ballot measure will “likely pass, even if by a razor-thin margin.”

The Proposition 1 vote remains too close to call, with 50.4% of ballots favoring it and 49.6% opposing it as of Tuesday morning, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.

“We almost took down the bear, but it looks like we will fall short,” said Californians Against Proposition 1 in a statement. “Today, as the principal opponents of Proposition 1, we concede that it is almost certain to pass.”

Newsom bet a chunk of his years-long homelessness and mental health care reform strategy on Proposition 1 and its promise of funding for more treatment beds and housing to make it all happen.

The measure would reconfigure California’s Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to push for more housing production and treatment beds and provide $6.4 billion in bond money.

Proposition 1 is connected to other mental health care initiatives Newsom has spearheaded or championed during the past two years. In 2022, he pushed for CARE Court, a statewide system of county mental health courts meant to compel treatment for those with severe mental illnesses. A handful of California’s 58 counties have already launched CARE Court, and the rest must do so by Dec. 1.

Last year, as he was pushing Proposition 1 through the Legislature, Newsom also supported Senate Bill 43 from Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, to reform the state’s definition of “gravely disabled” and make it easier to place people suffering from serious mental illness or addiction in conservatorships or involuntarily hospitalizations.

Previous standards assessed whether a person qualified for a conservatorship or involuntary hospitalization based on their ability to “provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter” or their status as a danger to themselves or others.

SB 43 added “the inability of providing for personal safety or necessary medical care” to the gravely disabled definition, making it easier to involuntarily hospitalize or conserve some people who would not have previously qualified.

Why Newsom needs Proposition 1

Both CARE Court and SB 43 exist independently of Proposition 1. But Newsom is counting on the the additional bond money and spending changes to produce the treatment beds and housing needed to bring the policies to full fruition.

Anthony York, a spokesman for the Proposition 1 campaign, said on Friday that Proposition 1 and CARE Court “absolutely work hand in glove with each other.”

“Prop. 1 will provide the housing that allows CARE Court to work,” he said.

Although the governor sold CARE Court as a measure to address homelessness, it did not include provisions for additional housing and treatment beds. CARE Court opponents raised this issue in 2022, to which the Newsom administration responded by pointing out the billions of dollars the state had already invested in combating homelessness.

Some counties, including Sacramento, are struggling to roll out SB 43 because officials say there are not enough treatment beds to effectively implement the policy.

Newsom in December slammed Sacramento County and others for delaying SB 43 implementation, saying, “The state has done its job. It’s time for the counties to do their job.”

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in December voted to delay participation in SB 43 until January 2025, saying they were not able to care for people who would become eligible for conservatorships.

This was partially because the county lacks enough facilities to treat those who would be newly eligible, such as step-down and locked treatment centers for people with substance use disorders, which could result in conserved people remaining in hospital beds for long periods of time, county spokeswoman Samantha Mott told the Sacramento Bee in December.

Additional Proposition 1 funding would help the state provide the housing and treatment beds counties and providers have said are lacking, allowing them to more fully implement CARE Court and SB 43.

The LAO estimated Proposition 1 would “build up to 4,350 housing units, with 2,350 set aside for veterans.” Even so, it would not make much of a dent in California’s overall homelessness crisis. More than 181,000 Californians were homeless in 2023, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“The number of housing units built by the bond would reduce statewide homelessness by only a small amount,” the LAO reported.

Proposition 1 opposition

County officials and mental health advocates — including ACLU California Action and Mental Health America of California — opposed Proposition 1 because they are concerned about the changes it makes to local mental health care funding.

“California’s mental health and housing systems need reform, but the numbers show that Proposition 1 is not likely to have any long-term effect in addressing California’s houselessness crisis, improving mental health systems, or helping alleviate mass incarceration,” the ACLU said in its opposition statement.

California Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of Santee and Huntington Beach Assemblywoman Diane Dixon, also disapproved of the governor’s desire to use bond funding, which they said circumvents the state’s budget process.

“If the state wants a grand solution for homelessness, it should attack the heart of the problem through the regular budget process–not expensive bond measures that RAISE TAXPAYER COSTS LONG-TERM,” the anti-Proposition 1 ballot argument read.

California funds the MHSA through a millionaire’s tax the state has collected since 2005. The tax raises about $2 billion to $3.5 billion per year for mental health services, 95% of which goes directly to counties, with 5% going to the state, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The ballot measure would change this, giving the state access to 90% of the money, or about $140 million more in MHSA funding per year, the LAO reports. Counties currently have some flexibility in terms of spending the money. Proposition 1 would require local governments and organizations to spend more MHSA funds on housing and certain support services.

The funding shifts and new spending conditions have some county officials and providers, especially those in more rural areas, worried they may no longer be able to fund chunks of their existing programming. These include prevention and early intervention services.

“We do not believe it will increase access to mental health services, it will decrease access to mental health services,” Karen Vicari, director of Public policy for Mental Health America of California, told the Bee just before the election.