When California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to toughen penalties for low-level theft and drug crimes last November, it became law without any funding to cover the costs of locking up more people or ordering them into treatment.

Now, state and local lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom are clashing over how to pay for it.

Proposition 36, which passed with nearly 70% of the vote, allows county prosecutors to bring felony charges against those caught using drugs or stealing property of any value if they have been convicted of similar crimes in the past.

The new law also increases sentencing requirements for fentanyl dealers. And it gives repeat drug offenders the option to enter treatment and have their charges wiped away, or face up to three years in jail or prison if they don’t complete a program.

Newsom opposed the measure — describing it as an “unfunded mandate” — and chose not to include money for the proposition in his latest state budget proposal amid a $12 billion deficit, except for some additional funding to bolster the state prison system.

At a news conference last month, Newsom suggested that local officials who supported Proposition 36, and are now calling on the state to bankroll it, should come up with the money themselves.

“To say there needs to be a state bill to solve all their problems is not what the voters require,” Newsom said.

Last week, Democrats agreed to set aside $100 million to phase in the measure. Half of the one-time funding would help expand treatment options, with the rest going to local courts and public defenders.

Lawmakers will now work with Newsom to try and reach a compromise for the finalized state budget, as the new fiscal year starting July 1 rapidly approaches. The governor’s office would not say whether Newsom would seek to strip away Proposition 36 funding from the budget.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco and chair of the Senate’s budget committee, said voters’ unambiguous support means the state has a responsibility to help overburdened county behavioral health agencies prepare for a potential influx of patients — though not everyone charged under the law can be referred to treatment.

“It makes a lot of sense and we should have been doing this for years, providing more support to our counties and providing mental health and addiction treatment,” he said at a committee hearing earlier this year.

Republican lawmakers, who had requested $400 million for the new law, slammed Democrats’ proposal. In addition to more funding for treatment, they had called for money to help local law enforcement crack down on retail theft and drug trafficking.

The proposal “ignores the will of voters by underfunding Prop. 36,” Assemblymember James Gallagher, a Republican from Sutter County, north of Sacramento, said in a statement.

Local officials from both parties across California also say more funding is needed.

In a statement, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a Democrat who campaigned for Proposition 36 — putting him at odds with Newsom — accused state lawmakers of ignoring voters’ frustrations over homelessness, addiction and public safety.

“The mandate couldn’t be clearer, and yet, instead of implementing the will of the people, Sacramento is attempting to sabotage it by refusing to fund the very solution voters called for,” Mahan said.

County officials across California contend the state needs to put forward $250 million to get the measure up and running.