Blog

Post-Election 2024: The Continued Unraveling of Criminal Justice Reform

By Jennie Patterson, Program Manager, National Racial Equity Initiative for Social Justice, CBCF 

The fight for criminal justice reform remains a pivotal issue in the United States, as the nation grapples with the balance between public safety and equitable justice. Following the wave of progressive reforms inspired by the tragic murder of George Floyd in 2020, the political landscape around criminal justice has shifted significantly. While initial reforms aimed to address systemic inequalities and reduce over-incarceration, recent debates have spotlighted growing tensions between advocates of reform and proponents of stricter penalties. As the 2024 election season unfolded, these tensions came to the forefront, as voters in many states decided on the future of criminal justice in America. 

During the 53rd Annual Legislative Conference (ALC), hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) from September 11-14, 2024, in Washington, DC, the state of criminal justice reform took center stage during a compelling session presented by CBCF’s Center for Policy Analysis and Research. Panelists explored the troubling rollback of reforms enacted in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, highlighting the critical role of state-level policymaking over federal legislation in shaping criminal justice outcomes.   

A mixture of red, blue, and purple states had criminal justice measures on the ballot in the 2024 election. Of the eight state ballot measures, only two supporting criminal justice reform passed. These outcomes provide insight into the current state of criminal justice reform and the political landscape moving forward. After progressive reforms were passed in the wake of George Floyd’s death, the election results suggest the pendulum is swinging the other way: voters in states across the country have chosen to increase prison sentences and levy fines to deter future crime.  

State Ballot Measures and Their Outcomes 

1. Arizona: Prop 311 and Prop 313 

Proposition 311 would require the state to pay $250,000 to the spouse or children of first responders killed in the line of duty. It would also increase the prison time and fines for people who assault first responders and broadens the types of professionals covered by this provision to also include firefighters, fire marshals, paramedics, tribal police officers, and more. The benefit would be funded by imposing a $20 fine for every criminal conviction. If the fund exceeds $2 million dollars, the state legislature may appropriate the funds to officer training, equipment, and other uses. Judges cannot exercise their discretion and waive the fine.  

OUTCOME: The measure passed.  

Proponents of Prop 311 believe the measure will deter and decrease violence against first responders by imposing fines and increasing the penalty for those convicted of assaulting first responders. Opponents believe this is yet another fine on top of the many fines and fees imposed for criminal convictions that have a disproportionate impact on people of color and people of low income. Furthermore, removing judiciary discretion disallows judges to consider individual personal and financial circumstances.  

Proposition 313 would require anyone convicted of child sex trafficking to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or release.  

OUTCOME: The measure passed.  

Proponents say that longer sentences serve as a deterrent. Opponents of Prop 313 claim the measure can hurt victims of sex trafficking themselves. There are many victims of sex trafficking who are coerced or forced to sex traffic others. Judiciary discretion allows judges to consider context and rule on a case-by-case basis. Prop 313 removes judiciary discretion, which allowed for the possibility of shorter prison sentences when appropriate.  

2. California: Prop 36 and Prop 6  

Proposition 36 would allow two low-level misdemeanors for certain theft or drug crimes to be treated like third strikes and turned into felonies. California’s three strikes law imposes harsher prison sentences on individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes three times. It would also add fentanyl to a list of drugs that carry additional enhancements, increasing prison time among other measures.   

OUTCOME: The measure passed. 

Prop 36 repealed several reforms that were passed by Prop 47 in 2014. Prop 47 was introduced to address prison overcrowding and reduce sentencing for low level non-violent crimes such as simple drug possession and petty theft. Proponents say Prop 36 will make communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. Opponents say Prop 36 will divert funds from rehabilitative programs to wasteful prison spending, which they believe does little to improve community safety.  

Proposition 6 would amend the state constitution to remove the current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.  

OUTCOME: The measure failed.  

The California state constitution will maintain the provision that authorizes involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Prison workers may be forced to work for wages as low as under $1 an hour.  Proponents of Prop 6 thought the measure would compel prisons to prioritize rehabilitative programs rather than menial tasks. While there were no opponents to Prop 6, supporters believe the campaign for Prop 36 negatively influenced voters’ perception of Prop 6, souring voters on any type of criminal justice reform.  

3. Colorado: Amendment 1 and Prop 128 

Amendment 1 would amend the state constitution to remove the right to bail in first degree murder cases and reinstate judges’ authority to deny bail if there is enough evidence before trial to presume the person will be convicted. Defendants charged with first degree murder would no longer be allowed to post bail and be released from prison while awaiting their trial.  

OUTCOME: The measure passed.  

The measure will allow judges to deny bail in first degree murder cases. Previously, the Colorado state constitution rendered individuals charged with crimes punishable by the death penalty ineligible for bail. In 2023, after Colorado abolished the death penalty in 2020, the state Supreme Court then ruled that judges could not deny anyone bail with the repeal of the death penalty, including those charged with first degree murder. This amendment, supported by both Republican and Democratic state lawmakers, returns bail discretion to judges. 

Proposition 128 would require 1) people convicted of certain violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole and 2) people convicted of two prior violent crimes to serve their full sentence before beginning parole.  

OUTCOME: The measure passed.  

This measure will increase the amount of prison time served before parole eligibility from 75% to 85%. Proponents of Prop 128 say the measure will keep communities safe by keeping people convicted of violent crimes in prison longer. Opponents say the measure will worsen prison overcrowding and unfairly punish those who may have earned time reductions with good behavior. Rather than investing in prisons, opponents say we should be investing in our communities.   

4. Missouri: Amendment 6 

    Amendment 6 will amend the state constitution to include a provision to allow the state court system to levy fees to fund the salaries and benefits of sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, and circuit attorneys.   

    OUTCOME: The measure failed. 

    While proponents and opponents of Amendment 6 agree that the salaries and benefits of public law enforcement officials should be fully funded, opponents disagree with the levying of fees to do so. Levying an unspecified amount of court fees can lead to huge amounts of debt and the further criminalization of the poor. According to opponents of the measure, tying pension funding to court fees will create a perverse incentive structure, leading to a greater number of arrests and prosecutions. 

    5. Nevada: Question 4 

    Similar to California’s Prop 6, Question 4 would amend Nevada’s state constitution to disallow slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.  

    OUTCOME: The measure passed.  

    The Nevada state constitution will repeal language that permits slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Proponents of Question 4 believe slavery and involuntary servitude are morally reprehensible, even as punishment for a crime. There were no opponents to Question 4. 

    What are the Implications for Criminal Justice Reform Nationwide? 

    Despite victories in Missouri and Nevada, six criminal justice reforms were rolled back or failed. Apart from California’s Prop 6, all of the measures either passed or failed with roughly 60-68% of the vote. Prop 6 failed with only 53% of voters voting against it.* Voters in purple states and even deeply blue California chose to reverse reforms or implement longer prison sentences. Proponents of harsher prison sentences and higher fines for crimes often claim stricter policies will prevent future offenses and enhance community safety. This was a recurring theme across all of the state ballot measures. However, research shows that longer prison sentences do not deter future crime. Prisons are incredibly expensive for states to run, with costs often extending beyond the state budget. Formerly incarcerated individuals often struggle to find jobs and housing upon release, increasing the likelihood of recidivism. There are social costs as well. Familial ties can be severed when individuals spend years or even decades away from their families.  

    The results of the election highlight the ongoing challenge of persuading Americans that longer prison sentences and higher incarceration rates do not equate to safer communities. Whenever crime increases—or the perception of increasing crime is perpetuated—criminal justice reforms are often blamed and abandoned. As we approach the five-year mark since George Floyd’s death, which ignited widespread support for criminal justice reform, we are reminded that much progress remains. We must advocate for more community resources rather than increased policing and incarceration to ensure our communities’ safety. While these setbacks are disappointing, our fight must continue. 

    *Not all election results were certified at the time this was written.