California critics slam Harris for not weighing in on Proposition 47

Proposition 47 is seen by critics as one of California’s biggest mistakes.

The referendum, supported by the state Democratic Party and championed by the American Civil Liberties Union, passed by a wide margin in 2014. The idea behind it was to reduce certain non-violent crimes to misdemeanors, freeing up resources for police and prosecutors. focus on violent criminals.

Since its approval, there has been an increase in crime, drugs and an emptying of city centers by companies frustrated because those who steal from them go unpunished.

Cities like San Francisco and Oakland, both places where Harris worked or spent significant time, have seen organized crime networks turn shoplifting into an ingenious production involving desperate thieves and unscrupulous black market dealers.

Drug addicts, who are often homeless, need money to fix themselves, so they go into a store and steal merchandise, sell it for half the value and use the money to buy more drugs. Anyone who is not addicted but wants something for free without suffering consequences is also involved in this vicious cycle.

Proposition 47 reduced most drug possession crimes and thefts of property valued at less than $950 from felonies to misdemeanors.

The devastating effects of Proposition 47 also created a palpable divide between city leaders and law enforcement, who felt they had little or no power to pursue criminals and became increasingly frustrated that those they arrested were back on the streets and stealing. indoors again. hours.

In November, California voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on Proposition 36, which reverses parts of Proposition 47, imposing stricter penalties for retail theft and crimes involving the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl.

The poll from the University of California, Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, found that 60% of likely voters favor Proposition 36, which would also impose harsher punishments on repeat offenders. The online survey of 3,045 Californians was conducted between September 25 and October 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 intend to approve this initiative,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll, a nonpartisan survey of California public opinion.

Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and California’s Democratic legislative leadership have publicly opposed Proposition 36, arguing that it would require a tougher approach to crime that in the past has led to state prisons becoming so overcrowded that Federal judges ruled the state was violating the prisoners’ constitutional rights.

“There are things that voters have in mind that apparently politicians have underestimated,” DiCamillo said.

Despite Newsom’s “no,” the majority of Republicans and independents supported the measure.

Greg Totten, co-chair of the Yes on Prop 36 campaign, told media outlet that the survey is “consistent with what we hear every day from Californians in every community across the state.”

“With so much momentum behind Proposition 36, it is surprising, some say, that Harris, who is campaigning as a prosecutor, has chosen to remain silent on the issue. She talks a lot about being tough on crime and strengthening security on the southern border,” JT Young, author of the book Unprecedented Attack: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Leftwrote in an opinion piece. “So this would be the perfect time for her to rectify her previous dereliction of duty on Proposition 47.”

Young blamed Harris for avoiding taking a stance on Proposition 47 when she was attorney general. He argued that his experience as a prosecutor and “simple common sense” should have opened his eyes to what would happen when Proposition 47 took effect.

“Lower penalties would lead to greater drug use and more drug victims would end up homeless on the streets of California,” he said. “Lower penalties for robbery would mean more robberies and decreased public safety. Abandoning DNA testing for reclassified crimes would mean fewer crimes solved. Perhaps Harris herself was so far to the left that she didn’t care about the consequences of Proposition 47. Perhaps she knew, but was intimidated by the initiative’s popularity and feared alienating the left-wing political movement that supported it.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Young said the vice president has a chance to make up for her inaction in California and pointed to topics like fracking, on which she reversed course.

“Yet Harris remains silent on Proposition 36,” he said. “The more she avoids taking a stand, the more obvious it becomes that she wants to maintain the old Proposition 47, with its soft standards on crime and the resulting failures that afflicted her former voters in the former Golden State. Harris is not serious about fighting crime in California. So how can voters believe she will do so as president?”