Credit: rawpixel.com
CC0 photo in public domain.
Written by David M. Greenwald
Editor-in-chief
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On election night, Proposition 1 had a support rating of just 50.2. Governor Newsom has poured significant political capital into this bill, billed as a way to overhaul the mental health system.
Opinion polls showed opponents were primarily Republicans wary of increased spending, but another group of opponents were mental health professionals.
Opponents of Prop. 1 believe the measure is on the verge of going down.
“For the time being, the outcome is unclear, but it doesn’t look very good for Prop. 1,” said the Californians Against Prop. 1 campaign.
“Prop. 1,” said Paul Simmons, director of Californians Against Prop. 1. All in all, it was a grave mistake.” Newsome may now face his worst public defeat in history, having been unsuccessful while auditioning for bigger roles across the country. ”
Governor Newsom has raised at least $20 million in Proposition 1 campaign contributions. Opponents, whose donations just recently reached $2,000, are relying instead on getting the word out to a grassroots network of mental health providers and advocates.
“All the money in the world doesn’t seem to sell bad ideas, and Proposition 1 was a bad idea,” Simmons said. That would likely cut existing mental health care and make the problem even worse, making Prop. 1 inexcusable and so unpopular that it may ultimately fail. It is.”
The measure worked by redirecting revenue from the 1% surcharge on incomes over $1 million created in 2004 by Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act.
But critics charged that it would have “doubled the state’s share of that revenue, made the state responsible instead of the counties, and cut at least 30% of local funding from mental health to a variety of services.” ing.
Simmons added: “When they passed the Mental Health Services Act 20 years ago, voters meant what they said. They wanted a dedicated revenue source for community-based mental health services. If Prop. 1 fails, voters will say, “Hands off!” a second time.”
During the 2009 budget crisis, Congress proposed “seizing half of the MHSA’s voter-approved revenues to cover the shortfall in a measure known as Proposition 1E.” Voters easily rejected the idea by more than 2-1. ”
The campaign claims that the 2004 ballot measure that led to the creation of MHSA was created by Darrell Steinberg, now Sacramento’s mayor and then a member of Congress, and whom they described as a “tireless and visionary champion of mental health care.” It is explained that it was co-authored by Rusty Sellix, who reviews the book.
Sellix passed away in 2019.
This year, Mayor Steinberg became a leading proponent of Proposition 1.
The campaign accuses Steinberg of failing to “address co-author Sellix’s pivotal role in the creation of MHSA and the system that has since grown.”
“I knew from the beginning that Mr. Rusty would say ‘absolutely no’ to Proposition 1,” said Simmons, who has worked closely with Sellix for many years. I won’t do that,” he said. Try to help the governor increase his reputation. We would see the defeat of Proposition 1 as Rusty’s revenge. ”
“This is not an abstract thing to us,” Simmons said. “Many of us who oppose Prop. 1 have worked within the system and are well aware of the disruption the Governor’s plan will cause. We are honored and righteous to see Prop. 1 defeated. right.”
The mental health community, on the other hand, felt “neglected” and ultimately voted against Proposition 1.
Simmons said there are three main motivations behind the mental health community’s opposition to Proposition 1.
1) Reductions in community-based programs (estimated to reduce community mental health services by up to 40-50%)
2) State takeover and local control overturning the MHSA model
3) Transform the MHSA into a more coercive system with more “coercive” treatment and locked facilities.
Legislative deliberations on the two bills that became Proposition 1 (AB 531 and SB 326) were rushed and secretive, and were characterized by the freezing of many local care providers and peer supporters. The community viewed the governor and legislators’ dismissal of their concerns as a grave disrespect for the services they provide, prompting many to donate their energy to oppose Prop. 1.
In October 2023, in their first statement on Proposition 1, Californians opposed to Prop. “Otherwise, there might have been real agreement on this bill.” At the last minute, compulsory treatment was introduced into the bill. Our community sees, hears and feels this as disrespect, and our bodily autonomy and freedom is threatened. ”
“We have said for weeks that if Proposition 1 were to fail, it would all come down to the governor’s poor strategy and decision-making. He and his group made numerous strategic mistakes,” Simmons said. But perhaps most importantly, it disrespected MHSA and the broader community of peers and providers, who believe that “nothing about us without us”. There is a principle that says “No.” Maybe the governor will listen now. ”
