Sheriff’s officers load boxes of ballots onto a helicopter in the Torrance courthouse parking lot on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024. (Photo by Rafael Richardson, contributing photographer)
The statewide ballot measure, which would overhaul California’s mental health system primarily through a bond issue of about $6.4 billion, was still close to a decision Wednesday night as votes continued to be counted from Tuesday’s election. It was too much.
See the latest election results.
Prop. 1 is a two-pronged proposal largely supported by Governor Gavin Newsom and numerous Southland elected officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and County Supervisors Hilda Solis and Janice Hahn. It is a measure. Supporters of the bill say it would dramatically increase access to treatment beds and supportive housing, but opponents say it would cut funding to already successful programs. There is.
Vote counting continued on Wednesday, with the count effectively a dead heat, with 50.2% voting in favor and 49.8% voting against. Of the approximately 3.8 million votes counted, the “Yes” camp had a lead of approximately 14,600 votes.
If approved by a majority of state voters, the proposal would create 11,150 behavioral health treatment beds, housing and 26,700 outpatient clinic slots in the state, according to Newsom’s office. It is said to become. About $1 billion of the bond will be earmarked specifically for veterans.
That would be accomplished in two ways, primarily through a $6.38 billion bond issue and funding generated by the Mental Health Services Act, which voters passed two decades ago and imposed a 1% income tax on Americans. It can also be done through redistribution. Earn more than $1 million a year. Funds under this measure would be directed primarily to counties for mental health programs, but Prop. 1 would give the state control over the bulk of the funding.
Newsom contends that Prop. 1 fulfills a vision of a comprehensive, statewide mental health treatment system that was begun a half-century ago and never came to fruition.
“We can make history,” Newsom said earlier this year at an event in Los Angeles to launch a campaign in support of the proposal. “We can’t take back the last 50 or 60 years, but we can finally realize the vision we set out a half-century ago. This initiative, Proposition 1, advances many things, including: It does not promote the status quo. It is the status quo. If you support the status quo, please vote no on Proposition 1.”
Bass also argued that the measure would correct years of mishandling of the state’s mental health crisis, while also helping alleviate the state’s rampant homelessness problem.
“Think about how much money you would save if Prop. 1 passed and actually put facilities in place for people and took people off the streets,” Bass said. “We know that addiction and mental illness contribute to homelessness. … We cannot separate these issues, and it is not enough to have beds for people to stay in. We’ve proven that people are willing to come off the streets. But we have to think about why they weren’t being contained in the first place. And we need a comprehensive approach. We need more, and Proposition 1 is a step in that direction.”
A group opposed to the bill, known as Californians Against Proposition 1, derided the measure as “huge, expensive and destructive,” saying it would cost taxpayers more than $9 billion over the life of the bond. It has ordered the transfer of $30 billion in funds. In the first 10 years, it defunded existing mental health services and “reduced existing functioning mental health services.”
“Prop. 1 breaks the promise voters made when they first passed the Mental Health Services Act in 2004,” the opposition group said. “Subsequent ideas include prevention, early intervention, youth programs, and programs for struggling and underserved populations, including racially and ethnically diverse groups and LGBTQ people. The goal was to create permanent, dedicated funding for long-neglected mental health services, such as programs. We provide everything.
“Proposition 1 would drastically reduce that funding, end commitments to mental health programs, and give an ax to dozens of programs across the state that cannot survive without MHSA funding. It commands us to do more with less.”
