This story has been updated.
Advertisements for and against Proposition A are already popping up on San Antonio TV stations, in residents’ social media feeds and in people’s front yards as the May 6 city election approaches.
For some, the many provisions of the proposed charter amendment are now familiar. Written by progressive reform groups ACT 4 SA and Ground Game Texas, the so-called “Justice Charter” aims to decriminalize marijuana and abortion, severely limit no-knock warrants, ban chokeholds, expand the city’s cite-and-release policy for low-level, nonviolent crimes and establish a “justice director” position within the city’s administration.
But what would Prop A look like in practice?
City Attorney Andy Segovia has said all but the justice director measure would be unenforceable under state laws, while police reform activists have said they plan to challenge those laws in court.
The abortion portion alone could face multiple lawsuits, said Michael Ariens, a professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law.
Anti-abortion group Texas Alliance for Life has already filed two legal challenges with the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled earlier this month that all challenges would have to wait until the measure is decided by voters.
That’s because the person or entity doing the suing has to demonstrate “a legal interest” or harm done to them as a result of the amendments, or the non-enforcement of them, Ariens said, something that neither party has unless the amendment is approved by voters.
For instance, he said, if someone is arrested for having a small amount of marijuana on them after the charter is changed, they “would likely have standing to challenge” their arrest under the charter. The same would apply to anti-abortion groups or the police union if they want to challenge the law.
The ballot language does not include all the nuances and exceptions that, if the measure passes, would be written into the city’s charter. But the ordinance approved by City Council in February to set the ballot also included the full text of the charter language.
Find the full text of Proposition A ballot language in the San Antonio Report’s 2023 city election guide.
Here’s an explanation of each element of Prop A, starting with what’s known as cite and release, which has drawn the most heated rhetoric and caused the most confusion and concern about how it would work.
‘Citations instead of arrests’
Prop A’s ballot language would require police officers to issue citations instead of making arrests for low-level nonviolent crimes.
Opponents say it would mean people would be able to commit certain crimes with impunity.
“Shoplifters and restaurant patrons can rack up a bill for $750 and walk away without paying a dime,” stated a recent email from the San Antonio Police Officers Association, which is spending big to oppose the measure.
But cite and release doesn’t mean an offender wouldn’t face legal consequences. Nor would a citation prevent the police or district attorney from investigating or prosecuting a crime.
Cite and release exists today as a voluntary, collaborative initiative that began in 2019 among the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, the San Antonio Police Department and the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office for certain criminal offenses.
The goal is to reduce costs, hold offenders accountable for their crimes in ways that discourage repeat offenses and allow officers to focus on more serious crimes, according to the District Attorney’s office.
From July 2019 through December 2022, the initiative has saved $5.6 million in booking costs by redirecting nearly 7,500 bookings to citations, according to the county’s website.
Under the existing program, officers can choose whether to arrest a suspect or issue a citation for:
- Class A and B possession of marijuana, 0-4 ounces
- Class A possession of marijuana, 2-4 ounces
- Class A and B possession of substance in penalty group 2-A, 0-4 ounces (synthetic cannabinoids)
- Class B criminal mischief less than $750
- Class B theft from businesses less than $750
- Class B theft of service less than $750
- Class B contraband in a correctional facility
- Driving while license invalid
Prop A would expand eligible crimes to include:
- All Class C misdemeanors — the least severe class, which includes most traffic tickets, gambling, disorderly conduct, minor in possession of alcohol, etc. — except Class C Public Intoxication
- Graffiti with damage less than $2,500
A key sticking point of Prop A for opponents is that it would remove an officer’s discretion to make arrests for this expanded set of nonviolent criminal offenses.
But there are potential exceptions that would allow an officer to arrest someone, such as if someone’s identity can’t be verified, if they ask to be arrested, have an outstanding arrest warrant for a non-citable crime, or who may be intoxicated, according to the charter language.
If the subject appears to “suffer from mental illness and/or addiction, the subject should be referred to appropriate medical and/or psychiatric services in lieu of arrest,” according to the proposed charter language.
Currently, when a citation is issued, the recipient must meet with a prosecutor, who may dismiss the charges, prosecute or refer the subject to community service or classes. There are often fines involved. If the individual completes the terms of their diversion program, the record is sealed.
If the citation recipient doesn’t show up or participate in the program, a warrant can be issued for their arrest. Once a subject is arrested, a magistrate judge determines a bond amount, and if the subject can pay, they’re free to go. Those who can’t pay, go to jail.
Whether in jail or not after an arrest, the subject’s case is resolved either by taking a plea deal, having the charges dropped by the district attorney or going to trial. Those convicted of a misdemeanor can face jail time, a fine or both — ranging up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000, the maximum punishment for Class A misdemeanors.
The police union says that without the immediate threat of jail, criminals will have no incentive to stop committing these crimes while residents and businesses will “suffer.” They say the amendment will lead to increased recidivism and an overall increase in crime.
Backers of Prop A say there’s no evidence crime will increase or that jail is a deterrent, and that codifying cite and release will ensure its survival beyond the current administration. Expanding the initiative to include more petty crimes, they say, will save money and allow people to avoid jail, which can lead to job loss, family life disruptions and decreased recidivism.
Decriminalizing marijuana possession
The amendment would end enforcement of low-level marijuana possession by “prohibiting police officers from issuing citations or mak[ing] marijuana offenses” and from using the odor of marijuana to justify search or seizure. Exceptions include high-priority, drug or violent felony investigations.
This would expand existing policy. Since 2019, the District Attorney’s office has declined to prosecute criminal possession of marijuana cases if the amount is less than 1 ounce. As a result, 97% of marijuana citations have been rejected, according to the county’s website.
Decriminalizing abortion
Prop A would prohibit the enforcement of abortion crimes — performing or facilitating an abortion — by not allowing police officers to “investigate, make arrests, or otherwise enforce any alleged criminal abortion” except in cases of coercion.
Last year, San Antonio City Council issued a symbolic resolution that condemned Texas’ abortion ban and recommended that no local funds be used to investigate criminal charges related to abortions.
Restricting ‘no-knock’ warrants
Prop A would ban San Antonio police officers from obtaining no-knock search warrants, from participating in other law enforcement agencies’ no-knock warrants and create “additional policies concerning the issuing of warrants.”
“No-knock” search and arrest warrants — when search and arrest warrants are executed without police officers first announcing their presence — were largely banned by department policy at the direction of Chief William McManus in 2020 in the wake of Breonna Taylor’s death in Louisville in March 2020. Police officers stormed into her apartment unannounced, triggering a gun battle that left her dead.
Officers can still use these warrants in situations in which “the safety and security of the officers or nearby citizens” are jeopardized.
Prop A would prohibit no-knock warrants except in cases of “verified, imminent threat to human life.”
Prohibiting use of chokeholds
Prop A would prohibit police officers’ use of chokeholds and neck restraints “with no exceptions.”
Chokeholds have been banned under SAPD policy since 2014, with the exception that an officer can use a chokehold on a suspect if someone’s life is in danger. Police use of chokeholds came under a magnifying glass after George Floyd was murdered in 2020 by a Minneapolis police officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes.
A ‘justice director’ at City Hall
If Prop A passes, City Council must appoint a justice director “who has not previously worked in law enforcement” to “reduce the city’s contribution to mass incarceration, … mitigate racially discriminatory law enforcement practices and …. save scarce public resources for greater public needs.”
The director would be required to give an “impact statement” before any council vote that may affect the policies changed by the charter amendment, which would be known collectively as “the Justice Policy,” such as budget and law enforcement decisions. They would also have to compile an annual impact report “with specific analysis of the justice impact of each City department.”
The amendment would also require the city manager to give the justice director access to information that would allow the director “ongoing monitoring and analysis of the city’s justice impact.”
