SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California’s Democrat lawmakers disagreed over an amendment to several public safety bills that would kill the bills if a November ballot initiative passes.
The state Senate’s Appropriations Committee on June 17 amended five bills to add the non-operability clause, linking them directly to the ballot initiative, which is aimed at reforming Proposition 47. It was passed by voters in 2014 to reduce prison sentences.
California’s Democratic lawmakers disagreed over some public safety bill amendments during a June 17 hearing where the state Senate’s Appropriations Committee amended five bills to add a clause that will render the legislation inoperable if a ballot initiative aimed at reforming Proposition 47—which was passed by voters in 2014 to reduce prison sentences—is approved in November.
The ballot measure seeks to remedy the perceived lapses of Proposition 47 by strengthening penalties for certain drug and theft crimes by allowing felony charges for repeat offenders while prioritizing drug rehabilitation programs.
Supporters of the ballot measure are against the public safety bill amendments, saying linking them to the ballot measure will force voters into a corner.
The amendments, announced June 7, have stirred controversy and at least two bill authors removed their names from their bills in protest of the non-operability clause.
“Unfortunately, I can’t support the retail theft package, which contains my Retail Theft Accountability bill, AB 1794, with the poison pill non-operative amendments included,” Mr. McCarty, said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times after the meeting.
“However, I am still optimistic I will be able to revisit AB 1794 as we continue to work out a solution with stakeholders by [June] 27.”
Mr. McCarty said constituents are looking for answers to address public safety concerns with approaches that “ensure accountability” while balancing punishments with drug treatment and diversion options.
“Californians expect their leaders to comprehensively address the rise in retail theft crimes,” he said. “Our overall plan must ensure businesses stay open and neighborhoods are safe.”
Ms. Irwin suggested the amendment to nullify if the ballot measure passes was forced on her bill.
“We have to take the amendment,” Ms. Irwin said during the hearing.
Her office referred all requests for comment to the Appropriations Committee for clarification, saying the amendments all came from the committee.
Committee staff did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
“We need greater accountability in California against repeat offenders who continue to engage in theft and harm our businesses,” Ms. Soria said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times.
“That’s the commitment I made to our community and law enforcement partners and it’s a commitment I won’t break. That is why I have removed my name from AB 1960.”
She told reporters after the Assembly session that her decision was made because law enforcement representatives reached out to her with concern about the amendment.
“These were my co-sponsors ... and I’m working very closely with my local law enforcement officials,” Ms. Soria said. “That’s what is important to me ... and it is an important issue across the entire state of California.”
Mr. Rivas didn’t respond to a question about his role as the new author of the bill or the inoperability clauses.
The Assembly’s Republican leader, James Gallagher, said the authors’ decisions to pull their bills is a signal that more lawmakers are recognizing the importance of protecting public safety.
“It’s a positive sign,” Mr. Gallagher told The Epoch Times. “Now we need to see more of it.”
Assemblyman Kelly Seyarto, an appropriations committee member, voiced his opposition to the amendments and to the decision by the fiscal committee to allow the bills to skip the suspense file process typically required of all bills that cost the state at least $50,000.
“These bills far exceed the amounts required to go to suspense,” Mr. Seyarto said during the meeting before making motions to send them to the file.
All attempts were unsuccessful, and the chair noted that the bills were being allowed to skip the process because they are urgent.
Mr. Seyarto repeatedly expressed his discontent with the inoperability clauses and said he would support the bills if the amendments were not included.
“Poison pills are being added to these bills in an attempt to hijack the legislative process and undermine the will of the voters,” Mr. Seyarto said in a June 13 press release. “It is unacceptable to play political games with public safety.”
One bill in the legislative public safety package—Assembly Bill 1972, authored by Republican Assemblyman Juan Alanis to target cargo theft with a property crimes task force—did not receive the inoperability clause amendment.
Mr. Alanis had earlier expressed concern about the non-operative clause in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times on June 7.
“I am frustrated with and have questions about the possible proposed new amendments,” Mr. Alanis said. “I have talked with leadership on both sides of the aisle about my concerns, and I hope they will be taken seriously.”
All six of the public safety bills were also amended to add an urgency clause—which fast-tracks the measures through the Legislature and allows them to take effect immediately if they make it to the governor’s desk and he signs them.
The urgency clauses received bipartisan support, and all six bills will next be heard by the Senate body in the coming weeks.
Some public safety bills introduced by the Senate will be heard June 19 by the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, where more inoperability and urgency clauses are expected, according to lawmakers.
