On July 13, a judge in Alameda County, California, issued a temporary restraining order (PDF) to keep a new law modifying Proposition 36 from going into effect. The order was granted by Judge Winifred Smith at the request of Drug Policy Alliance, the California Society of Addiction Medicine, and Cliff Gardner, co-author of Proposition 36.

If implemented, the law, SB 1137, would radically change California's landmark treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative. The changes would allow people engaged in drug treatment who relapse to be removed from treatment and locked up in jail for several days.

Margaret Dooley, DPA's statewide outreach coordinator for Proposition 36, said, "This legislation is unacceptable. Relapse is a common part of recovery, which doctors say is best handled through treatment. There is no evidence that stints in jail make for better outcomes, and they could indeed have the opposite effect. But SB 1137 is more than just bad policy--this law violates California's constitution."

According to the state constitution, changes that revise the intent of a ballot initiative cannot be made without putting the question to the voters. Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for DPA, explained, "SB 1137 radically rewrites Prop 36. Prop 36 provides treatment instead of incarceration, whereas SB 1137 allows incarceration during treatment. That's why this case is so clear cut."

In issuing the temporary restraining order, the judge found that the Drug Policy Alliance and California Society of Addiction Medicine had a "substantial likelihood of success" in the lawsuit to overturn SB 1137.

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.

The next step in the legal proceedings to protect this groundbreaking initiative will be a ruling from Judge Smith on DPA's motion for preliminary injunction, which would keep the law from taking effect until the court rules on its constitutionality. The current temporary restraining order will remain in effect until the ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction.

The hearing for the motion for preliminary injunction will likely take place on August 23. Briefing, oral argument and a decision by the court on the constitutionality of SB 1137 will take place later this year.