Prop 25: California Measure's Pros And Cons

LOS ANGELES, CA — Proposition 25 joins the swollen ranks of confusing state propositions on the Nov. 3 ballot in California. That’s because it's among the majority of this year’s state propositions that seek to repeal, amend or affirm existing laws. So voters need to understand the original law and what the proposition will do to it.

Proposition 25 is a referendum on a 2018 law that replaces the cash bail system with a risk assessment process to determine if a suspect should remain jailed while awaiting trial. It was hailed as a major revolution of the criminal justice system and bail bond industry, but it was halted from going into effect by the referendum that is Prop 25.

A yes vote on Prop 25 would uphold that 2018 law nixing the cash bail system. A no vote would keep the cash bail system in place.

Proponents of Prop 25 want to see the cash bail system eliminated because they say it is a blatant injustice that criminalizes poverty. They argue that a defendant with means can pay bail, walk free and continue to earn a living while awaiting trial. A person who can’t afford to make bail, however, languishes in jail unable to earn a living or pay bills while awaiting trial.

A person’s wealth shouldn’t determine how long a person has to sit in jail, according to Prop 15 advocates.

Check Out The CalMatters 2020 Election Guide

“Prop 25 would essentially bring about an end to the predatory, unfair money bail system in California. Somebody who is accused but not convicted of a low-level, nonviolent offense could spend days, weeks or months in jail simply because they don’t have enough money to get out,” said Jonathan Underland, a spokesman for the Yes on 25 campaign. “Not only is it deeply unfair, it essentially makes it a crime to be poor. It’s also unsafe because as long as you have enough money, you can get out.”

Proponents of Prop 25 cite the case of Kenneth Humphrey, a Black man from San Francisco accused of stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne, burglary and elder abuse. Unable to make bail, he sat in jail for a year awaiting trial.

Compare that to the infamous Brock Turner case, in which the Stanford student was freed on $150,000 while awaiting trial for sexual assault, Underland said.

Prop 25 proponents accuse the billion dollar bail bond industry of trying to steamroll the legislative process, filing for the referendum the day after the new law was passed. Those backing the measure include the state Democratic Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Rep. Karen Bass and the California Teachers Association.

A wide range of groups have come together to oppose the measure, including the State Republican Party, the California Black Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Inland Empire Latino Coalition, several NAACP chapters and faith leaders. The breadth of the coalition reflects a discomfort with the measure that spans progressive and conservative groups.

Opponents of the measure contend it replaces every Californian’s right to make bail with a computer-generated predictive modeling system likely to be biased against people of color and the economically disadvantaged.

"Prop. 25 will be even more-discriminatory against African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities. Computer models may be good for recommending songs and movies, but using these profiling methods to decide who gets released from jail or who gets a loan has been proven to hurt communities of color,” Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference of the NAACP, wrote in the official ballot argument against the measure.

Opponents also contend the measure is a threat to public safety that makes it hard for police officers to do their jobs. Offenders who are released without having to put up bail have little incentive not to reoffend, they contend.

The bail bond insurance industry has spent more than $6 million on the referendum. Support for the measure has largely been funded by Los Angeles Clippers owner Steven A. Ballmer and his wife Connie Ballmer.