As California adjusts to the stricter crime rules under the recent voter-passed Proposition 36, an Orange County legislator is pushing to make it easier for people to choose rehabilitation over incarceration.

Legislation written by Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, who filed early to kick off the 2025-26 legislative session, aims to ensure all eligible Californians have access to drug treatment. It would require every county to offer a drug treatment program, either by setting up its own, partnering with neighboring counties or working with outside providers.

“The bill is not in its final product,” Umberg said, “but every Californian who would be eligible under Proposition 36 for felony-mandated treatment should have access to treatment.”

In November, voters across California’s 58 counties overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, a measure that increases penalties for certain theft and drug-related crimes, including repeat offenders. For instance, theft of items valued at $950 or less, typically a misdemeanor, is now a felony if the offender has at least two prior convictions for certain theft-related crimes.

It also lengthens sentences for certain felonies and mandates that some be served in state prisons rather than county jails.

However, Proposition 36, which officially went into effect Dec. 18, also includes a rehabilitative component. Under the new law, offenders who are in possession of certain drugs — including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine — and have two or more previous drug-related convictions could choose to enter a drug treatment program instead of going to jail or prison.

But Umberg said there are disparities in how treatment courts already operate across the state. While larger counties like Orange generally have robust programs, smaller ones often lack the resources to set them up, he said.

And there are currently no statewide requirements for counties to offer a treatment court.

“In other words, if you’re in Sierra County with 700 people, you may not have to have a separate drug treatment court, but you have to have something in place so that someone who is eligible under the criteria of Proposition 36 has access to the court,” Umberg said. “If there’s an adjacent county or there’s another provider that can meet the criteria, then that’s okay, too.”

“But (the legislation) doesn’t require, contrary to what some folks are saying, that there be a new court per se for every county. It requires that everyone who is eligible have access and that the courts need to provide that access, whether they do it themselves or they provide that access through other providers that would fall within the vision of the bill,” he said.

Umberg’s legislation has measures to keep people accountable within treatment court programs, including regular alcohol and drug testing as well as incentives to encourage success. Judges are also required to play an active role in monitoring participants.

Umberg, who has long worked on drug policy, described the bill as part of his ongoing efforts to address addiction through reform.

“I’m a firm believer in second chances. I’m a firm believer in acknowledging that addiction is an illness that need not be either a death sentence or a criminal sentence,” he said.

While SB 28 is not a funding bill, Umberg said counties might face financial challenges in meeting its requirements.

“We have the challenge of how we’re going to fund it, and I do assume that there’s going to be additional funding requirements,” he said.

If passed, SB 28 would take effect immediately to provide rehabilitation programs for those who choose to participate. Umberg said he believes this approach offers a cost-effective and humane solution to addressing addiction.

“I’m a firm believer in trying to turn people around early on,” he said. “I think that collaborative courts, when done properly, dramatically reduce recidivism.”