Fact check: California residents overwhelmingly passed prop 36. Gavin Newsom was super butthurt about it.

1. Summary of the results

The core claims of the statement are accurate. Proposition 36 indeed passed with overwhelming support, receiving approximately 70.6% of votes ^{[1] [1]}. The measure was successful across all 58 California counties ^[2], demonstrating widespread support throughout the state. Governor Gavin Newsom did strongly oppose the measure, though characterizing him as "butthurt" is informal and editorialized. He publicly fought against the proposition ^[3] and expressed significant concerns, specifically stating it would "take us back to the 1980s" ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important pieces of context are missing from the original statement:

• The proposition specifically deals with increasing penalties for certain crimes, partially reversing a 2014 measure that had reduced sentences ^[3]
• Newsom's opposition wasn't merely personal - he was joined by other Democratic leaders and legislators ^[2]
• There were specific concerns about potential discrimination against minority communities ^[5]
• The vote represented a significant disconnect between Democratic leadership and voters, with Democratic strategists acknowledging they were "out of touch with voters" on this issue ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the core facts are accurate, there are several biased elements:

• The use of "butthurt" trivializes legitimate policy concerns expressed by Newsom and other opponents
• The statement omits the substantive reasoning behind Newsom's opposition, including his concerns about:
• Return to "mass incarceration" ^{[1] [1]}
• Potential discriminatory impacts on minority communities ^[5]
• Regression to 1980s-era criminal justice policies ^[3]

The statement appears to frame the issue as a personal defeat for Newsom rather than acknowledging the broader policy implications and concerns raised by various stakeholders. Both law enforcement groups supporting stricter penalties and civil rights organizations concerned about discrimination could have financial and political interests in how this proposition is perceived and implemented.