A poison pill or more choices for voters?
That’s the kerfuffle reverberating through the halls of the state Capitol, all centering on how to tighten penalties for retail theft.
Sacramento Snapshot
Editor’s note: Sacramento Snapshot is a weekly series during the legislative session detailing what Orange County’s representatives in the Assembly and Senate are working on — from committee work to bill passages and more.
In the one corner, there’s an effort to ax parts of what’s called Proposition 47, a 2014 voter-approved measure that reduced penalties for certain theft and drug offenses. The idea was to reduce overcrowding in the state’s jails.
But the increasingly visible effects of the fentanyl crisis and rampant retail theft throughout the state have led to an effort to repeal parts of Prop 47. Voters in November will decide whether to allow felony charges for certain drug and theft crimes; a reform measure has qualified for the ballot, the secretary of state announced last week.
Meanwhile, state legislators have faced increasing pressure to act on fentanyl and theft crimes, as well.
A bipartisan slate of public safety measures — imposing higher penalties for those who start fires to engage in retail theft, increasing penalties for professionally organized retail theft offenders and strengthening regulations to ensure online third-party marketplaces aren’t selling stolen goods, among other things — have been in the works this year.
But it all came to a head last week when Democrats proposed two changes to those bills.
The first change, or amendment, is the addition of what’s called an “urgency clause,” which means a bill would take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature. Bills with these designations, however, would need a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate to pass.
The second proposed change is the most controversial. Called “contingent repealer clauses,” this change would nullify those bills should they become law and voters approve the changes to Prop 47 in the fall.
Related: These are the bills that OC legislators are trying to pass
Democratic leaders, in a joint statement, said the changes would “address conflicting or unintended outcomes” should the bills and the ballot measure both pass.
They see the package as “an alternative to the ballot measure,” said Chris Micheli, a veteran lobbyist in Sacramento.
Albeit, it’s a bit of an unusual maneuver, Micheli said. More often, there are bills that are contingent on other legislation or ballot measures passing to be enacted.
“That’s the normal thing. It’s unusual to put contingent repealer clauses into bills, especially a package of bills, but despite that, it’s perfectly appropriate,” said Micheli.
“And as the Democratic leaders in the two houses pointed out, it presents a choice for voters: Either vote against the ballot measure and you’ll have the legislative reforms, or vote for the ballot measure and the law will be the ballot measure.”
But Sen. Kelly Seyarto, vice chair of the Senate’s Public Safety Committee, suggested the proposed changes are rather meant to dissuade or even kill the Prop 47-targeted ballot measure.
It doesn’t need to be either/or with the legislative package and ballot measure, Seyarto said.
“For me, it’s a little much. We should not be putting in these amendments. We should pass these bills through, and if and when the voters overturn Prop 47 in the fall, then these (bills) would be already in place to help with some of the rampant retail theft stuff going on,” said Seyarto, a Republican whose district includes Yorba Linda.
If adjustments need to be made because both the ballot measure and legislative package passed and provisions conflicted, legislators could do that when they’re back in Sacramento in January, Seyarto said.
“We’ve never operated with that in mind, that somehow these are going to have conflicts down the road,” he said. “We pass so many bills that have conflicts with them, some of them are unconstitutional but we still pass them and they get thrown out in courts.”
“Essentially these are political games with our public safety bills,” said Seyarto.
Republicans aren’t the only ones who have cried foul.
Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, D-Jackson, said she is no longer co-authoring two of the retail theft bills because of “unconsulted amendments.”
“Let me be clear — I do support the Prop 47 reform initiative and believe the voters have the right to vote on this,” Alvarado-Gil said in a statement. “This is not about the policy, it’s about the politics.”
And Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, a Sacramento Democrat who chairs the Public Safety Committee, said he was unsupportive of the amendments and didn’t make those changes when the bills came before his committee last week.
Included in the bill package is legislation from Sens. Dave Min, D-Irvine, and Josh Newman, D-Fullerton. Both included statements with Democratic leadership’s announcement of the proposed changes.
Related Articles
Sacramento Snapshot: Legislature considers how AI can impact the 2024 election
Sacramento Snapshot: How the California Legislature is tackling AI this year
Sacramento Snapshot: Bill banning plastic bags passes state Senate
Sacramento Snapshot: First-time DUI offenders in OC would have to install breathalyzers on cars, bill says
These are the bills that OC legislators are trying to pass
“Cracking down on retail theft not only protects the businesses that call our great state home but protects the countless, hardworking employees that are the hearts of our economy and our communities,” said Min. “We are moving quickly to allow law enforcement to prosecute criminals and deter future crime. I am proud to support our law enforcement and give them the tools they need to fight crime in the Golden State and hold criminals accountable.”
“The Senate’s Safer California Plan gives law enforcement the tools and resources they need — as soon as possible,” Newman said. “Our package of bills sends a clear message that we are willing and able to tackle the retail theft crisis as urgently as we can.”
So far, the amendments have not been attached to the bills.
That means they could either be put on when the bills go through appropriations committees, possibly this week — Seyarto noted the rules prevent legislators from debating the merits of bills in appropriations so there would be no discussion over these amendments if that happens — or when they come to the floor.
The secretary of state will certify the measures for the November ballot on June 27 — meaning proponents of the Prop 47 reform measure have until then to withdraw it.
“Right now we’re waiting,” said Seyarto.
Leave a Reply