To the Honorable Governor of California,

 

We, the undersigned, respectfully submit this petition to urge immediate executive and legislative action to restore the full promise of Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, and to address the unintended and harmful consequences of Penal Code section 3046 as interpreted by recent court rulings.

 

Background and Urgency

 

In July 2025, the California Court of Appeal (Third District) ruled in Criminal Justice Legal Foundation v. CDCR (Case No. C100274) that individuals serving indeterminate life sentences may not apply Proposition 57 rehabilitative credits to advance their Minimum Eligible Parole Date (MEPD) under Penal Code section 3046. As a result, hundreds of incarcerated individuals, many already found suitable for parole by the Board of Parole Hearings, have had their releases blocked or delayed despite years of demonstrated rehabilitation and earned credits.

 

This ruling directly contradicts the intent of Proposition 57, which was passed by nearly 64 percent of California voters to reduce incarceration through rehabilitation, incentivize positive institutional behavior, and allow meaningful parole consideration based on demonstrated change rather than rigid statutory formulas.

 

Conflict Between Proposition 57 and Penal Code §3046

 

Proposition 57 expanded the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s authority to award credits for good conduct, education, and rehabilitative programming and to allow earlier parole consideration for individuals who earn those credits. Penal Code section 3046, however, mandates that individuals serving indeterminate life sentences must serve a fixed minimum term, typically 15 years, before parole eligibility, regardless of credit earnings.

 

While CDCR initially interpreted Proposition 57 as permitting earned credits to advance MEPDs for indeterminate sentences, the C100274 ruling has erected a de facto barrier between voter-approved reform and outdated statutory rigidity, effectively nullifying earned credits for an entire class of people.

 

Harmful Impacts of the C100274 Ruling

 

The consequences of this decision are severe and far-reaching:

 

- Retroactive punishment of rehabilitated individuals

Hundreds of people who have already been found suitable for parole, many with low recidivism risk and extensive program participation, remain incarcerated solely due to statutory timing constraints.

 

- Violation of voter intent

California voters explicitly endorsed rehabilitation and decarceration. This ruling revives pre-reform punitive logic and disregards the electorate’s mandate for a more humane and evidence-based system.

 

- Waste of public resources

Continued incarceration of parole-suitable individuals exacerbates overcrowding, increases taxpayer costs, and undermines the credibility of CDCR’s credit system and the Board of Parole Hearings’ determinations.

 

- Disproportionate harm to system-impacted communities

The ruling disproportionately affects Black, Brown, and low-income individuals who are already overrepresented in California’s prison population, erasing years of rehabilitative effort and progress.

 

Requested Actions

 

We respectfully urge the Governor to support and advance the following remedies:

 

1. Amend Penal Code section 3046

Explicitly permit the application of Proposition 57 credits toward Minimum Eligible Parole Dates for individuals serving indeterminate life sentences and clarify that earned credits may accelerate parole eligibility timelines.

 

2. Provide restorative relief

Direct or support measures requiring the Board of Parole Hearings to release individuals already found suitable for parole under recalculated MEPDs, unless specific and articulable public safety concerns require continued confinement.

 

3. Clarify the scope of Proposition 57

Codify voter intent to ensure that all earned rehabilitative credits apply toward parole eligibility for all eligible individuals, including those serving life terms with the possibility of parole.

 

Conclusion

 

The C100274 ruling exposes a dangerous gap between California’s reform policies and its statutes. It punishes rehabilitation, perpetuates unnecessary incarceration, and undermines the will of California voters. Without corrective action, Proposition 57 risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive for thousands of incarcerated people.

 

We call upon your leadership to realign California’s parole system with its stated values of rehabilitation, fairness, and public safety. The integrity of California’s justice reforms depends on it.

 

Written by: Christopher Carbajal & Manuel Barrios

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Kate Kent

Certified Substance Abuse Counselor & Life Coach

Sociology Student, Laney College

Advocate for Rehabilitation and Parole Reform

 

On behalf of concerned residents, families, and system-impacted communities of California