The Drug Policy Alliance is engaged in a legal battle against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other public officials over the fate of Proposition 36, California's landmark treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative.

Jump to court documents:

• Court decisions
• Plaintiffs' documents
• Defendants' documents

On July 12, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 1137, which would radically change Prop 36 by allowing judges to incarcerate people who suffer drug relapses during treatment.  Within hours of the governor’s signature, the Drug Policy Alliance, the California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM), and Cliff Gardner, the official ballot proponent of Prop 36, filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court to strike down SB 1137 as unconstitutional.  DPA and CSAM also immediately sued to block implementation of the law.  The action is Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (Case Number RG06278911).

DPA won its first victory in the lawsuit when Alameda County Judge Winifred Smith issued a temporary restraining order to keep SB 1137 from going into effect.  Judge Smith found that DPA and CSAM had a "substantial likelihood of success" in the lawsuit to overturn SB 1137. A second victory came on September 15, 2006, when the same judge entered a preliminary injunction stopping SB 1137 from being implemented while the court considers its constitutionality.

Proposition 36 was approved in 2000 by 61% of California voters. Since then, the initiative has saved the state over $1.3 billion and helped more than 60,000 people with drug convictions receive treatment and lead productive lives.  According to the state constitution, changes that revise the intent of a ballot initiative cannot be made without putting the question to the voters.

Briefing, oral argument and a decision by the court on the constitutionality of SB 1137 will likely take place later this year.

For more information, see the court documents that have been filed thus far in this case.

Court Decisions

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiffs' Documents

Complaint

• Exhibit A: California Official Voter Guide, 2000 General Election
• Exhibit B: Letter from Legislative Counsel, re: Permissible amendments to Prop 36
• Exhibit C: Senate Bill 1137

Declarations in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

• Exhibit 1: Declaration of James Austin, PhD
• Exhibit 2: Declaration of Peter Banys, M.D., M.Sc.
• Exhibit 3: Declaration of Cynthia Chandler
• Exhibit 4: Declaration of Jackie Goldberg
• Exhibit 5: Declaration of Sujung Kim
• Exhibit 6: Declaration of Cynthia McDonald
• Exhibit 7: Declaration of Jason Ziedenberg
  • Supplemental Declaration of Jason Ziedenberg in Support of Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and For Order to Show Cause; Declaration of Jonathan Weissglass
 
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Preliminary Injunction

• Appendix: Amendments Made by Senate Bill 1137 to Current Code Sections

Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

• Exhibit A: Official Voter Information Guide, State of California, 2000
• Exhibit B: Letter from Legislative Counsel, re: Permissible amendments to Prop 36
• Exhibit C: Senate Bill 1137 (enrolled)
• Exhibit D: Senate Bill 1137 as amended on June 27, 2006
• Exhibit E: Senate Bill 1137 as amended on June 26, 2006
• Exhibit F: Senate Bill 1137 as introduced on January 10, 2006
• Exhibit G: Senate Bill 803 as amended on June 8, 2006
• Exhibit H: Senate Bill 803 as amended on May 2, 2006
• Exhibit I: Complete Bill History of Senate Bill 1137
• Exhibit J: Complete Bill History of Senate Bill 803
• Exhibit K: Assembly Daily Journal, June 27, 2006
• Exhibit L: Senate Committee on Public Safety Analysis of Senate Bill 803, April 18, 2006
• Exhibit M: Senate Committee on Public Safety Analysis of Senate Bill 803, May 2, 2006
• Exhibit N: Assembly Floor Analysis of Senate Bill 1137
• Exhibit O: California Secretary of State’s Statement of Vote for 2000 General Election
• Exhibit P: Legislative Update, Office of the Governor, July 12, 2006

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Preliminary Injunction

Letter to Public Officials Informing Them of Lawsuit

Press Release

Defendants' Documents

Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

[Proposed] Order Granting Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by State Defendants

[Proposed] Order Granting Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Preliminary Injunction

Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by State Defendants

• Exhibit A: Official Voter Information Guide, State of California, November 2000
• Exhibit B: California Legislative Counsel's Digest, Senate Bill 1137
• Exhibit C: Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: 2004 Report, Prepared for California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs by UCLA, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, research by Douglas Longshore, Ph.D., Darren Urada, Ph.D., Elizabeth Evans, Yih-Ing Hser, Ph.D., Michael Prendergast, Ph.D., and Angela Hawken, July 22, 2005
• Exhibit D: Fourth Annual Report to the Legislature, State of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP), 2005

Alameda County Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice and Opposition to Preliminary Injunction

• Exhibit A: Notice of Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint

Answer to Unverified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief