Prop 47 is seen by critics as one of California’s biggest blunders.
The referendum, supported by the state Democratic Party and championed by the American Civil Liberties Union, was passed by a wide margin in 2014. The idea behind it was to reduce certain non-violent felonies to misdemeanors, freeing up resources for police and prosecutors to focus on violent offenders.
Since its passage, there has been an increase in crime, drugs, and a hollowing out of downtowns by businesses frustrated that those who steal from them largely go unpunished.
Cities such as San Francisco and Oakland, both places Harris has worked or spent significant time, have seen organized crime rings turn shoplifting into a slick production involving desperate thieves and unscrupulous black-market resellers.
Drug addicts, who are often homeless, need money for a fix, so they walk into a store and steal merchandise, sell it for half the value, and use the money to buy more drugs. Those who aren’t addicts but want something for free without facing consequences are also involved in this vicious cycle.
Prop 47 reduced most drug possession offenses and thefts of property valued under $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor.
The devastating effects of Prop 47 have also created a palpable rift between city leaders and law enforcement, who felt they had little to no power to go after criminals and have become increasingly frustrated that those they did arrest were back on the streets and stealing again within hours.
In November, California voters will have a chance to weigh in on Proposition 36, which rolls back parts of Prop 47, by slapping stricter penalties on retail theft and crimes involving the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl.
The University of California, Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, found that 60% of likely voters are in favor of Prop 36, which would also deliver harsher punishment to repeat offenders. The online poll of 3,045 Californians was conducted between Sept. 25 and Oct. 1, among 3,045 Californians considered likely to vote in next month’s general election. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
“Voters are intent on passing this initiative,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll, a nonpartisan survey of California public opinion.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and California’s Democratic legislative leadership have publicly opposed Prop 36, claiming it would take a more tough-on-crime approach that, in the past, led to state prisons being so overcrowded that federal judges ruled the state was violating the constitutional rights of prisoners.
“There are things voters have on their minds that, apparently, the politicians have underestimated,” DiCamillo said.
Despite a “no” from Newsom, a majority of Republicans and independents backed the measure.
Greg Totten, co-chairman of the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign, told the outlet that the poll is “consistent with what we hear every day from Californians from every community in the state.”
”With so much momentum behind Proposition 36, it is surprising, some say, that Harris, who is campaigning on her record as a prosecutor, has chosen to stay silent on the matter. She talks a great game about getting tough on crime and strengthening security on the southern border,” J.T. Young, author of the book Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, wrote in an opinion piece. “So this would be the perfect time for her to rectify her past dereliction of duty on Proposition 47.”
Young faulted Harris for avoiding taking a position on Prop 47 when she was attorney general. He argued that her background as a prosecutor and “simple common sense” should have opened her eyes to what would happen when Prop 47 went into effect.
“Lower penalties would lead to more drug usage and more drug victims winding up homeless on California streets,” he said. “Lower penalties for theft would mean more theft and decreased public safety. Abandonment of DNA testing for reclassified crimes would mean fewer crimes solved. Maybe Harris herself was so far to the left that she didn’t care about Proposition 47’s consequences. Maybe she knew but was intimidated by the initiative’s popularity then and feared alienating the left-wing political movement supporting it.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Young said the vice president has a chance to make good on her inaction in California and pointed to topics such as fracking, which she has reversed course on.
“Yet still, Harris remains silent on Proposition 36,” he said. “The longer she ducks taking a stand, the more obvious it is that she wants to retain the old Proposition 47, with its soft-on-crime standards and the resulting failures that have afflicted her former constituents in the formerly Golden State. Harris isn’t serious about fighting crime in California. So how can voters believe she will do so as president?”
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
