California’s Proposition 47, a 2014 referendum that reduced certain non-violent felonies to misdemeanors, has been widely criticized for its devastating impact on the state. Despite its passage by a wide margin, the initiative has led to an increase in crime, drugs, and a decline in downtown areas. Cities like San Francisco and Oakland, which Vice President Kamala Harris has ties to, have seen the rise of organized crime rings that exploit loopholes in the law.
The initiative reduced most drug possession offenses and thefts of property valued under $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor, creating a vicious cycle where desperate individuals steal merchandise to sell for a quick fix. This has led to a rift between city leaders and law enforcement, who feel powerless to stop criminals and are frustrated by the revolving door of arrests and releases.
In November, California voters will have the opportunity to address the issue by passing Proposition 36, which would roll back parts of Prop 47 by introducing stricter penalties for retail theft and crimes involving the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl. A recent poll found that 60% of likely voters support the measure, which would also target repeat offenders.
However, Governor Gavin Newsom and California’s Democratic legislative leadership have publicly opposed Proposition 36, citing concerns about overcrowding in state prisons and the potential for a return to tough-on-crime policies that led to constitutional rights violations in the past. Despite their opposition, a majority of Republicans and independents back the measure, with many arguing that voters are intent on passing it.
The poll’s findings have been consistent with what proponents of Proposition 36 are hearing from Californians across the state, with many expressing frustration with the current system and a desire for change. The lack of a clear stance from Harris, who is campaigning on her record as a prosecutor, has been seen as surprising by some, particularly given her ties to California and her background as a law enforcement official.
Critics argue that Harris’s silence on the issue is a reflection of her own past inaction on Prop 47, which she failed to address as attorney general. They point to her record on crime policy and her reversal on fracking, suggesting that she may be hesitant to take a stand on Proposition 36 due to concerns about alienating her left-wing base. The longer she remains silent, the more it appears that she is willing to retain the status quo and the resulting failures that have afflicted her former constituents in California. This lack of leadership has raised questions about her commitment to fighting crime, both in California and as a potential president.
