By Anita L. Wills
I. Introduction: California’s Promise, California’s Betrayal
In 2016, California voters spoke clearly. By a 2-to-1 margin, they approved Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act, amending the state constitution to ensure that “any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.” It was a direct mandate, a promise of fairness, and a chance to cut through decades of mass incarceration with a simple principle: nonviolent offenders deserve review, not permanent warehousing.
Yet nearly a decade later, Donald “C-Note” Hooker—a celebrated prison artist and writer who has served 28 years on a nonviolent third-strike sentence—remains locked behind bars without ever receiving the streamlined parole review voters demanded. His case is not simply another bureaucratic oversight buried in the machinery of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). It is proof that Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has actively worked to block the very relief Proposition 57 guaranteed.
The record tells the story. CDCR first certified Hooker as eligible for a Prop 57 review (Exhibit B), only to reverse itself the very next day with a denial letter issued under Newsom’s authority (Exhibit C). That denial falsely claimed Hooker already had a parole hearing scheduled within a year, when no such hearing existed. Later, CDCR went even further, fabricating credit calculations (Exhibit E) to justify pushing him into a harsher parole process. Each step of this reversal is documented in official state records.
For transparency and public accountability, all of these exhibits—Exhibit A through Exhibit G—are published and explained in detail at Parole Elder Abuse Concerns Everyone (P.E.A.C.E.). What they reveal is more than paperwork; they show the state circumventing the will of its voters, with Newsom’s name directly tied to the denial.
As Newsom positions himself for a presidential run, this contradiction between promise and practice risks becoming a political liability of historic proportions. The question is no longer whether C-Note was eligible for review—his own file proves it—but whether the Governor of California will continue to stand by a denial that undermines both justice and democracy.
II. The Case of Donald ‘C-Note’ Hooker
Donald “C-Note” Hooker is not a name hidden in obscurity. He is recognized globally as an artist whose work transcends prison walls—hailed as “Prison Picasso” in India, “The King of Prison Hip Hop” in Brazil, and “The World’s Most Prolific Prison Artist” in London. Yet in California, the state continues to hold him on a nonviolent third-strike sentence, now into his 28th year of confinement, despite the clear constitutional mandate of Proposition 57.
The paper trail of his case reveals a stunning reversal. In March 2025, CDCR acknowledged Hooker’s eligibility for the Indeterminately-Sentenced Nonviolent Parole Review process (Exhibit B). His Nonviolent Parole Eligible Date (NPED) had, in fact, already passed back in 2001, meaning everything after that date was the product of a three-strike enhancement—precisely the type of over-punishment Prop 57 was meant to cure.
But the very next day, his eligibility was stripped away. A referral decision issued under Governor Newsom’s authority (Exhibit C) denied him the Prop 57 review, claiming: “You will not be referred … because you have been scheduled for a parole hearing in the past or will be scheduled for a parole hearing in the next year.” At that moment, no such hearing existed. Months later, the record shows CDCR manipulating credit calculations (Exhibit E) to manufacture a new, earlier parole eligibility date—an “arithmetic impossibility” under its own rules—so that it could retroactively justify the denial.
By June 2024, Hooker’s Annual Classification Committee report (Exhibit D) had described him as a “Model Inmate,” noting “zero serious rule violations” and a positive institutional record. It even recorded that the next possible parole hearing date would not arrive until June 16, 2026—far outside the one-year window CDCR cited when it blocked his Prop 57 review. This discrepancy exposes the manufactured nature of the denial.
When Hooker attempted to challenge this injustice through the only internal channel available, his grievance (Exhibit G) was dismissed as “outside the Department’s jurisdiction.” With that, every administrative door was closed.
The full record of Exhibits A through G has been published at Parole Elder Abuse Concerns Everyone (P.E.A.C.E.), where readers can see for themselves how California certified Hooker’s Prop 57 eligibility on one day and reversed it the next. The paper trail makes plain that the state’s actions were not about public safety—they were about bureaucratic maneuvering designed to keep him confined.
As one prison-rights attorney noted: “If Prop 57 can be bureaucratically nullified, then direct democracy becomes a paper tiger.”
III. The Cost of Bureaucratic Betrayal
What happened in Donald “C-Note” Hooker’s case is not an isolated clerical error—it is part of a broader pattern with devastating consequences. The denial of his Prop 57 review carries costs that are legal, financial, racial, and political.
First, there is the missed deadline. Proposition 57 required that indeterminately sentenced nonviolent prisoners receive parole consideration by December 31, 2021. That constitutional mandate has come and gone without Hooker—and hundreds of others like him—receiving the review guaranteed by voters.
Second, there is the fiscal burden. California spends roughly $106,000 per year to house each prisoner. By pushing Hooker’s next potential parole hearing into June 2026, the state is committing itself to at least another $212,000 in unnecessary incarceration costs—money that could otherwise support re-entry programs, victim services, or community education. When repeated across the prison system, these bureaucratic detours represent millions in wasted taxpayer dollars.
Third, there is the racial skew. Public records requests have revealed that African American prisoners are disproportionately rerouted from the Nonviolent Eligible Parole Date (NEPD) track into the harsher Minimum Eligible Release Date (MERD) track, where denial rates soar. The statistics are stark: MERD cases face an 86% denial rate, compared to a still-high but lower 74% denial rate for those processed under NEPD, the track voters intended under Prop 57. Hooker’s sudden shift from eligibility (Exhibit B) to denial (Exhibit C) and then to manipulated MERD-style processing (Exhibit E) mirrors this systemic bias.
Finally, there is the political cost. Governor Gavin Newsom’s name sits on the very denial letter that blocked Hooker’s Prop 57 review. This transforms the case from a bureaucratic misstep into a political liability. It is one thing for CDCR to mishandle paperwork; it is another for the Governor of California to preside over, and be explicitly tied to, the subversion of a voter mandate. Each extra year Hooker remains in prison not only erodes faith in reform but deepens mistrust among the very voters Democrats rely upon—particularly Black voters who already feel betrayed by broken promises.
The full breakdown of these exhibits and their implications is available at Parole Elder Abuse Concerns Everyone (P.E.A.C.E.). Together, they show how California’s failure to implement Prop 57 is more than a bureaucratic error: it is a betrayal of democracy itself.
IV. Newsom’s Record of Gaslighting Black Communities
Donald “C-Note” Hooker’s Prop 57 denial is not occurring in isolation. It reflects a broader pattern in which Governor Gavin Newsom has been accused of saying one thing to Black communities while doing another in practice—a pattern that critics describe as gaslighting.
One flashpoint was California’s Proposition 6, which sought to remove involuntary servitude from the state constitution. Newsom’s administration, while publicly promoting racial justice initiatives, initially opposed the measure. For many incarcerated and formerly incarcerated Black people, this felt like a denial of their lived experiences with prison labor. State Senator Sydney Kamlager captured this frustration bluntly:
“The CA State Senate just reaffirmed its commitment to keeping slavery and involuntary servitude in the state’s constitution. Way to go, Confederates.”
Another controversy came with reparations. Although Newsom signed a bill apologizing for historical racism, critics accused him of undercutting meaningful reparations proposals at the eleventh hour. This led to a wave of disillusionment among Black voters who had once seen him as a progressive ally. Phillip Scott, host of the African Diaspora News Channel with 1.9 million subscribers, told his audience to disengage entirely, urging them to “vote the couch” See Governor Gavin Newsom and California Black Caucus Sabotages Reparations, Still Voting Blue?
The electoral results suggest that message resonated. As reported,
“Turnout in Philadelphia and surrounding areas was lower during the 2024 presidential election, than 2020 where Biden won. In Detroit, Vice President Harris saw 19,000 less votes than President Biden had received in 2020. Georgia also saw a .6% decline in the 2024 presidential Black vote.”
These numbers point to an unmistakable trend: younger Black voters, particularly men under 50, are increasingly skeptical of Democratic leadership. They see broken promises not just as political disappointments but as betrayals. In this context, Newsom’s name appearing on the document that blocked C-Note’s Prop 57 parole review is not just a legal failure—it is a symbolic one. It confirms for many that even when Black communities vote for reform, those in power can still maneuver to deny it.
The full evidentiary record behind this betrayal is published at Parole Elder Abuse Concerns Everyone (P.E.A.C.E.). What is at stake is not only the freedom of one man but the credibility of a governor courting national leadership while Black voters weigh whether his words match his actions.
V. Lessons from Kamala Harris’s 2020 Presidential Collapse
Governor Newsom’s handling of Donald “C-Note” Hooker’s case echoes a familiar political failure: the downfall of Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign. Harris entered the race with national excitement, but her campaign faltered in large part because younger Black voters distrusted her criminal justice record.
The breaking point came during the second Democratic primary debate in Detroit. Representative Tulsi Gabbard directly challenged Harris on her prosecution record, highlighting her office’s role in blocking reforms and keeping people in prison. The exchange went viral, cementing doubts about Harris’s authenticity on justice issues. Viewers can revisit that moment here:
The critique landed hardest among the very voters Democrats needed most: younger Black men. For many, Harris’s history as a “top cop” in California contradicted her progressive messaging. Those contradictions became political liabilities that she never recovered from.
Newsom now risks repeating Harris’s mistake. By allowing his name to appear on paperwork that denied Hooker’s Prop 57 review (Exhibit C), Newsom is tethered to a narrative of broken promises and manipulated justice. Just as Harris’s criminal justice record eroded trust among Black voters, Newsom’s direct role in blocking Prop 57 reforms could make him vulnerable in a presidential primary.
The lesson is clear: Black voters are no longer swayed by rhetoric alone. They measure leaders by whether they honor reforms and respect the mandates of direct democracy. If Newsom fails to reconcile his public image as a reformer with the reality of his prison record, he risks following Harris’s path—from early promise to political collapse.
VI. The Presidential Stakes for Newsom
The consequences of Governor Newsom’s decision to block Donald “C-Note” Hooker’s Prop 57 review extend far beyond California’s prison gates—they go to the heart of his presidential viability.
The Democratic Party is facing a growing crisis with younger Black voters, particularly men under 50. As one analysis put it:
“The drop off of Black male Democrats under 50 was particularly acute. These are the kind of voters that Democrats are having a difficult time resonating with.”
That trend already damaged Vice President Kamala Harris in 2020 and contributed to lower Black turnout in key battlegrounds during 2024. If Newsom becomes tied to a high-profile case of voter-mandated reform being undermined—complete with his name on the denial letter—it risks accelerating this erosion of trust.
Politically, the vulnerability is obvious. Rivals like Representative Ro Khanna, or other progressive challengers, could seize on Hooker’s case to frame Newsom as a governor who talks reform but presides over racial injustice. Just as Tulsi Gabbard’s debate moment defined Harris, a single viral spotlight on C-Note’s file could define Newsom.
And the stakes are higher now. Newsom is positioning himself not only as a Democratic leader but as a national voice on justice, equity, and democracy. Yet if he cannot enforce the very reforms that California voters demanded, how can he credibly present himself as the candidate to expand justice nationwide?
The answer to that question will determine whether Newsom’s presidential ambitions flourish—or whether, like Harris’s, they collapse under the weight of contradictions.
VII. Conclusion: From Prop 57 to Prop Broken
Donald “C-Note” Hooker’s case makes one fact unavoidable: California is not living up to the promise of Proposition 57, and Governor Gavin Newsom is not a distant bystander but a direct participant in that betrayal. The record is clear. CDCR certified Hooker as eligible for a Prop 57 review (Exhibit B). The very next day, under Newsom’s authority, that eligibility was stripped away with a denial letter (Exhibit C) that cited a parole hearing which did not exist. Later, phantom credit calculations (Exhibit E) and a hastily scheduled hearing (Exhibit F) were deployed to justify the earlier denial. Hooker’s grievance (Exhibit G) was dismissed outright.
These are not clerical errors; they are conscious maneuvers that undermine the will of California voters. And because Newsom’s name is on the denial, the consequences fall squarely at his feet. Each year Hooker remains behind bars adds another $106,000 in taxpayer costs, compounds the racial disparities of parole denials, and deepens the perception that California’s reforms are a paper promise.
For Black voters—already skeptical after the gaslighting over Prop 6 and the collapse of meaningful reparations—this case resonates beyond one man’s freedom. It speaks to whether democracy itself can be trusted to deliver justice when officials can so easily sidestep the mandate of the people. As one attorney put it:
“If Prop 57 can be bureaucratically nullified, then direct democracy becomes a paper tiger.”
For Newsom, the political stakes are profound. Like Vice President Kamala Harris before him, he risks losing credibility with the very voters who should be at the center of a Democratic coalition. Hooker’s story is now part of the larger narrative of Black August, a time when communities reflect on struggles for freedom. If Newsom cannot correct the course—by ensuring the Prop 57 review that voters demanded—then Black August may also become the month that defined the unraveling of his presidential ambitions.
The full evidentiary record, Exhibits A through G, can be reviewed at Parole Elder Abuse Concerns Everyone (P.E.A.C.E.). There, the paper trail speaks for itself. What remains to be seen is whether Governor Newsom will act—or whether the words “Prop 57” will be remembered not as a promise kept, but as a promise broken.
About the Author
Anita L. Wills is a writer, historian, and community activist whose work focuses on race, justice, and the lived experiences of marginalized communities. She is the author of six books, including A Nation of Flaws: JustUs in the Homeland, a critical history of policing in America.
A NATION OF FLAWS JUSTUS IN THE HOMELAND https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/leboudin?srsltid=AfmBOoo5a7uf9a4jHFwB8NqBEAZnjXxEOo2vLWqEql4lJzt-UsF7rzkI
Through her writing, public speaking, and advocacy, Wills amplifies the voices of those silenced by systemic injustice, continuing a legacy of truth-telling rooted in both scholarship and lived experience.
Leave a Reply