Kamala Harris played almost no role within the necessary crime decision that California voters made within the 2014 election once they passed Assembly Bill 47, reducing penalties for a lot of kinds of crimes.
So don't expect her to say much about Proposition 36, a measure supported by prosecutors who’ve long argued that Prop. 47 makes life easier for criminals. Of course, don't expect Harris to spend much time in California this fall either, since her home state is viewed by all sides as unalterably blue and Harris is sort of certain to usher in 54 electoral votes.
The primary purpose of Prop. 47 was to downgrade many property and drug crimes from their previous felonies to misdemeanors. Many say this opened the door to rampant shoplifting and a series of apparently well-organized and coordinated “robbery and snatch” burglaries.
Few of the criminals involved paid a high price for these crimes. Almost all of them were classified as misdemeanors under Prop. 47, which sets a $950 minimum value for a theft to be considered a felony. This meant that even thieves who were caught could normally avoid jail time.
Ten years ago, Proposition 47 divided the state's leading Democrats. Harris did little to oppose it, while Gov. Gavin Newsom, then the lieutenant governor, supported it. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown opposed it, regardless that the measure boosted his efforts to cut back the prison population.
Then-US Senator Dianne Feinstein also opposed it, warning that “the blanket reclassification of many dangerous crimes as misdemeanors would put the people of California at constant risk…” Meanwhile, current Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, who’s currently in a tricky battle for re-election, signed the ballot in favor of Prop. 47. He was then San Francisco District Attorney.
Retailers are one business segment that definitely feels in danger because of Prop. 47 and the crime standards it comprises. Companies like Target, Walgreen's, and Rite-Aid have closed stores because of rampant shoplifting. Major supermarkets like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot are amongst the most important funders of Prop. 36, which might roll back much of Prop. 47.
Under the brand new measure, one in three convictions for theft of any magnitude can be a felony punishable by three years in prison. Possession of fentanyl would even be a felony, and one in three convictions for drug possession can be a “treatment-requiring felony,” depriving those convicted of the precise to refuse treatment.
Newsom has been anything but neutral on Prop. 36, pushing through a 10-bill package geared toward eclipsing and replacing Prop. 36. He will due to this fact not support it. His successor as San Francisco mayor, London Breed, was a key backer of the proposal.
Harris, meanwhile, took no position on the unique Proposition 47. Her campaign manager on the time said attorneys general are like referees, “the objective observers who call balls and strikes.” He said that role was given to Harris since the law requires the attorney general to write down fair and objective ballot titles and summaries for all initiatives.
However, previous attorneys general, akin to Republican Dan Lungren within the Nineties and Democrat Tom Lynch within the Nineteen Seventies, took clear positions on ballot proposals. Harris won’t have much to do with Proposition 36 and is perhaps clever to avoid it altogether, because it could split the party, even when she would then face criticism for dodging the problem.
But it has never hurt her thus far, so changing her tactics now doesn't appear to bring her any major and obvious profit. So it might be no surprise that the California resident doesn't even mention the problem this fall, regardless that she's voting with him.
Send Thomas Elias an email at tdelias@aol.com and skim more of his columns online at californiafocus.net.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com