GARDNER v. SCHWARZENEGGER
178 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2009)
CLIFF GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.
November 5, 2009.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Jonathan K. Renner, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods and Kathleen A. Lynch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.
Altshuler Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass, Stacey M. Leyton; Drug Policy Alliance, Daniel N. Abrahamson, Theshia Naidoo and Tamar Todd for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Francisco J. Silva and Long X. Do for California Medical Association and California Psychiatric Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.
MARCHIANO, P. J.—
Defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Secretary of State Debra Bowen appeal from a judgment enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill No. 1137 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) sections 1 through 12 (Stats. 2006, ch. 63, §§ 1-12; hereafter Senate Bill 1137), that sought to amend the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter Proposition 36). The issues are whether the provisions of Senate Bill 1137 challenged by plaintiffs Cliff Gardner, Drug Policy Alliance, and California Society of Addiction Medicine further the purposes of Proposition 36, and, if not, whether Senate Bill 1137 can be submitted to the voters for approval. We hold that certain of the challenged sections of Senate Bill 1137 cannot reasonably be construed to further the purposes of Proposition 36, and that Senate Bill 1137's provision for a popular vote, if any part of Senate Bill 1137 is invalidated, is itself invalid. Consistent with these conclusions, we affirm the judgment.I. BACKGROUND
A. Proposition 36
Proposition 36, passed by the voters in the November 2000 general election, generally provides that those convicted of drug possession offenses are initially to receive probation with drug treatment, rather than incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).)1 "Drug treatment" is defined to exclude drug treatment programs in a prison or jail facility. (§ 1210, subd. (b).)
Proponents of Proposition 36 argued in the Voter Information Guide to the election: "The war on drugs has failed. Nonviolent drug users are overcrowding our jails. Violent criminals are being released early. Drug treatment programs are rarely available. We pay $25,000 annually for prisoners when treatment costs only $4,000. Expanded treatment programs will reduce crime, save lives, and save taxpayers hundreds of millions." (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) summary of Prop. 36, p. 3 (Guide).) Opponents argued among other things that the proposition would "tie the hands of judges" and "cripple legitimate treatment." (Guide, supra, rebuttal to argument in favor of Prop. 36, p. 26; id., summary of Prop. 36, p. 3.)