How did we get here? Punitive sentencing laws added large numbers of inmates to state prisons from the 1980s through the early 2000s, growing the population by more than sevenfold, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. By 2006, the prison system was operating at more than 200 percent of its design capacity, with a population of more than 170,000 inmates. Overcrowding became so extreme that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation could not provide adequate medical care for incarcerated people. Some prisons had backlogs of up to 700 prisoners waiting for doctor appointments. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling described “unsafe and unsanitary” living situations, with inmates being housed in converted gymnasiums and dayrooms and sharing only a few toilets and showers. These conditions resulted in disease outbreaks and “unrest and violence.” The court cited one case in which prison staff didn’t learn an inmate had been assaulted in a crowded gymnasium until he had been dead for several hours. California was ordered to bring its population down by tens of thousands of people, leading to sentencing policy changes. The state still doesn’t control its prison medical care system. The class-action lawsuit that forced the state to reduce overcrowding also prompted a federally-appointed receiver to begin managing prison medical care in 2006. That receivership is still in place. The receivership resulted in a host of changes, some of which the state is still implementing nearly two decades later. According to an LAO report, California has spent billions of dollars to upgrade prison medical facilities, including the construction of a new facility in Stockton that houses inmates with severe medical and mental health conditions. California is on the verge of another prison receivership. A federal judge in July suggested she may appoint a receiver to oversee prison mental health care as the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation continues to struggle with staffing issues, treatment delays and inadequate suicide prevention. The judge earlier in the year held the agency in contempt for not addressing these issues. How would Prop 36 affect all this? Prop 36 would put more people behind bars, but that increase likely won’t be steep enough to cause a large uptick in the overall number of state prisoners. In fact, the LAO still expects the population to flatten, or even decline, through 2028, because of other policies the state has enacted, said analyst Caitlin O’Neil. But the ballot measure could hinder Democratic lawmakers’ push to close additional prisons, said Magnus Lofstrom of the Public Policy Institute of California. Lawmakers last month cited this concern when pushing back against a bill from Assemblymember Phil Ting aimed at consolidating prisons. — with help from Catherine Allen IT’S WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@politico.com.
| 
