The “Me Too” anti-sexual harassment campaign that quickly yielded several resignations by state lawmakers last fall appears to have hit a lull in Sacramento with Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, now seemingly on track for re-election this November despite scandalous allegations. But new twists may loom.

Garcia, 40, appeared doomed to a primary defeat two months ago. She took a voluntary leave of absence after she was accused of groping a then-legislative staffer four years ago; making inappropriate comments to a lobbyist; playing “spin the bottle” with staffers; and of using racist and homophobic language. The perception that she was a weakened candidate led the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California – which supported her in 2014 and 2016 – to oppose her primary bid.

But between a preliminary probe finding no evidence for the most serious allegation against Garcia – that she groped a staffer – and the strong support of Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, Garcia finished first in her June 5 primary. She got 29 percent of the votes to 27 percent for Republican activist Mike Simpfenderfer, a mortgage banker. The other five candidates in the race, all Democrats, split the remaining 44 percent of the vote.

Last week, however, saw two developments that suggested Garcia wasn’t out of the woods yet. The first came when the Assembly agreed to consider an appeal of its finding clearing Garcia of groping former legislative aide Daniel Fierro, who now works as a Los Angeles County political consultant. Fierro sought the appeal last month amid grumbling that the initial investigation of Garcia was released even though it was incomplete.

This concern may have been a factor in the second development: the call from two Democratic lawmakers for a much more transparent and responsive approach to allegations of misconduct involving state lawmakers and staffers.

Anti-gay, anti-Asian remarks could haunt Garcia

State Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, said existing efforts to respond to sexual harassment don’t go nearly far enough to take on a “toxic” culture in the Capitol. They propose establishing a new investigative unit that would focus only on discrimination and harassment complaints; would handle probes for both the Assembly and the Senate; and would rely on an independent committee of experts to recommend punishment for those found guilty of wrongdoing. Legislators, however, still would have the final say on what if any penalties were assessed.

But the Mitchell-Friedman proposal targets not just the behavior that Garcia has so far been cleared of but behavior of the sort the Assembly probe found she had engaged in: using homophobic slurs to describe fellow Los Angeles County Democrat John Perez, the Assembly’s first openly gay speaker, and of threatening violence against Asian-Americans after some Asian-American lawmakers balked at affirmative-action proposals that they thought would help some minority groups but not their own.

“The proposed policy … aims to spur a shift in how people in the Capitol community speak and act toward each other,” the Associated Press reported. “It encourages people to report minor incidents such as insensitive comments all the way through more aggressive acts of misconduct.”

Rendon’s decision to defend Garcia while still appearing strongly sympathetic to the Me Too movement has been complicated by comments that suggest he thinks Garcia’s larger record of legislative priorities and accomplishments should matter in judging her behavior. Similar suggestions made in defense of former President Bill Clinton and now-former Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, triggered a furious backlash.

Rendon entered this territory in April when he denounced the building trades unions for seeking to replace Garcia with other Democrats whom Rendon said would be more willing to challenge aggressive environmental policies touted by Gov. Jerry Brown and all the party’s legislative leaders. A spokesperson for the unions said their opposition to Garcia was prompted not by her strong environmentalism but by sympathy for her alleged victim and a belief another candidate would better reflect the values of the 58th Assembly District.

But Rendon rejected the claims in a blistering statement posted by the Sacramento Bee in which he called the unions’ maneuvering “a thinly veiled attempt by Big Oil and polluters to intimidate me and my members,” “ an affront to my speakership” and an “ill-advised political attack.”

“We recognize that accomplishing these objectives will take time, but we must start now,” said Assemblymember Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, and Senator Holly Mitchell ,D-Los Angeles, the chair and vice chair of the committee, in a statement.

While the exact guidelines are still a work in progress, the pair announced three guiding principles: “Significant cultural change to create a workplace of respect, civility and diversity”; “comprehensive redesign of policy, procedures and training”; and “independent investigation and determinations of sexual harassment allegations to ensure equitable and accountable outcomes.”

The push to change the rules follows several months of revelations surrounding sexual harassment and a toxic culture for employees in the capitol. After Sen. Tony Mendoza’s resignation stemming from allegations of sexual harassment, the Senate announced new guidelines that require outside investigators in such cases. The Assembly, however, did not adopt similar reforms. The subcommittee hopes to streamline these disparities.

The Joint Committee’s next hearing will be on June 18.

In a fresh bid to reform California’s criminal justice system, Sacramento lawmakers have begun to advance several bills, many aimed at softening juvenile punishment. “Democratic state senators Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles and Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens are proposing four bills intended to keep more youthful offenders out of the criminal justice system,” as the Associated Press noted.

“State senators in California on Monday introduced an eight-bill justice reform package focused on juveniles that would create a minimum age incarceration standard, a ban on sentencing minors to life without parole and Miranda rights protections,” according to Courthouse News. “Senate Bill 190 would extend financial relief to families with children in the justice system by nixing court administrative fees, and Senate Bill 395 would require minors to consult with an attorney before waiving their rights during interrogations.” Senate Bill 439, another piece of legislation, would tweak jurisdictional rules to ensure minors under the age of 12 do not wind up in juvenile court.

String of changes

At a recent hearing around the bills, lines of support and opposition took familiar shape. “Witnesses urged lawmakers to support legislation they said would ensure the fair treatment of children under the law,” the Los Angeles Times recalled. “But law enforcement groups and prosecutors said it could keep authorities from holding offenders accountable and hinder officers from carrying out investigations.”

At a recent appearance at a Sacramento elementary school, the bills’ two sponsors worked to portray their changes in rational and moral terms. “Mitchell, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, acknowledged some minors are involved in serious crime,” Capital Public Radio reported. “But she spoke out against incarcerating children under 12 years old as if they were ‘pint-sized’ adults.”

Activists pushing to further liberalize California’s incarceration laws have seen statewide success focusing on the fraught relationship between crime and child punishment. “In recent years, state legislation and propositions have attempted to create greater court protections for young offenders and to lower the population of incarcerated youth, as research on brain development has found that children learn differently from adults and should be afforded a criminal justice approach centered on rehabilitation,” the Times noted separately. “The latest victory for criminal justice advocates was Proposition 57, which will now require a judge’s approval before most juvenile defendants can be tried in an adult court.”

Curbing prison culture 

But adult justice also received some attention, with proposed amendments “weakening drug enhancement sentencing procedures, nixing public defender reimbursement fees for individuals found innocent by the court and sealing arrest records of those not convicted of a crime,” according to Courthouse News. “The lawmakers hope the reforms will reduce county costs related to minor drug sentences and remove employment barriers for people accused but not convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.”

Other recent criminal justice reforms have advanced quickly in Sacramento. One, targeting abuses in prison snitch rewards, passed its first legislative test with flying colors. “Assembly Bill 359 on Tuesday sailed unanimously through the state Assembly Public Safety Committee,” as the Orange County Register noted. “Under the bill, snitches like Mexican Mafia members Raymond “Puppet” Cuevas and Jose “Bouncer” Paredes would no longer be able to live like kings behind bars, raking in as much as $3,000 a case as well as cartons of Marlboro cigarettes, fast food, Xbox machines and other perks.”

“The bill caps all monetary and nonmonetary payments to informants at $100 per case, including any investigatory work. Currently, the cap is $50 per case for testimony and no limit in compensation for investigation,” the paper observed. “Additionally, the bill requires prosecutors to keep databases that track informant work and locations, and to turn detailed informant histories over to defense attorneys no later than 30 days before the preliminary hearing.”

The column set off a war of words over the difference between legalization and decriminalization, with critics panning the column as “misleading,” “irresponsible” and “an unsubstantiated hot take.”

But the column’s author, Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, shot back on Tuesday in an interview with CalWatchdog, saying: “There is no war of words; the Democrats are lying about this.”

War of words

Allen’s critics have argued that California lawmakers (mostly, but not exclusively, Democrats) did not legalize child prostitution. Instead, child prostitution was decriminalized, in that minors could not be arrested and charged with prostitution or for loitering in public with the intent to commit prostitution. 

But Allen told CalWatchdog on Tuesday that decriminalization and legalization are the same thing. And in his column he argued that the new law makes it so that law enforcement can’t “interfere with minors engaging in prostitution.” 

Is there a difference?

At first glance, the difference between decriminalization and legalization may seem like the type of petty detail in a dispute between politicians that would frustrate the average constituent. 

But in practical terms, the difference in this instance is that while minors are immune from charges related to prostitution, customers and pimps are not. It is just as illegal as ever to purchase or sell sex with a minor, a fact noted by both The Sacramento Bee, which called Allen’s column “misleading,” and the conservative website Red State, which wrote Allen’s editorial was “an unsubstantiated hot take.” 

“Pimping is still illegal. Solicitation of sexual acts – whether from a minor or an adult – is still illegal. Statutory rape is still illegal,” Red State wrote. “So how is it that law enforcement can’t interfere?”

“Even so, Mitchell’s bill does allow for law enforcement to ‘interfere’ and for the minor to be adjudicated as dependent and brought into state custody,” Red State added.

Allen argued to CalWatchdog that under the new law, custody is only temporary. Allen added that legalization (or decriminalization) of child prostitution removed a tool for prosecutors, as the charges against minors were often pleaded down or dropped in exchange for testimony against pimps and others involved in the crime.

What’s the point?

In late September, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1322, which made it no longer a crime for minors to engage in prostitution. The point was to treat minors engaged in prostitution as victims of crimes instead of criminals. 

The line of logic used by the bill’s sponsor, Senator Holly Mitchell, in a recent interview with KCRA, was that children under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to sex and therefore it’s rape. The Los Angeles Democrat also called Allen’s column “irresponsible.”

“You cannot consent to any kind of sexual experience if you’re under 18,” Mitchell said. “And so how then therefore could you be convicted of prostitution?” 

So what’s your solution?

When asked what more should be done to combat child prostitution, Allen said SB1322 was a step backwards. When asked again –  what specifically could be done to reduce child prostitution – Allen told CalWatchdog, “There’s always more that could be done,” and then repeated SB1322 was not the solution.

Whose law is it?

The Bee debunked claims made by Allen about certain opponents of the measure, as well as the claim that the law was “passed by the progressive Democrats,” when in fact moderate Democrats and a few Republicans supported the measure as well (though it was just a few Republicans).

“He includes a quote from Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley stating that decriminalizing child prostitution ‘opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse,'” The Bee wrote. “O’Malley initially opposed the bill, but ultimately signed on as one of the its highest-profile supporters.”

The measure narrows a loophole allowing local law enforcement agencies to seize citizens’ property without a criminal conviction — a practice dubbed “policing for profit.”

Under a compromise struck in the last weeks of the legislative session, law enforcement officials would not need a conviction to seize property, like cash and houses, valued above $40,000 — but 80 percent of cash seizures are below that amount. 

Civil asset forfeiture was originally used to seize the property of criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process. As law enforcement budgets were cut, they became more dependent on forfeitures as a steady revenue stream and the claims of abuses piled up.

California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000 and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value, but law enforcement can sidestep state law if it’s done in partnership with the federal government.

Local agencies can kick 20 percent of the proceeds to the federal government as part of the “equitable sharing” program, which does not require an arrest. In fact, there really only needs to be a suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

Opponents say that law enforcement does not “police for profit” and civil asset forfeiture is one of the many tools used to fight large criminal enterprises. 

The measure died previously under major opposition from law enforcement. However, the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, were able to negotiate the compromise with the help of a diverse group of supporters. The measure ultimately sailed through the Legislature.

Asset forfeiture is the practice by which police agencies grab the assets – cash, cars, boats, homes – of suspected criminals. Designed originally to fight drug kingpins, asset forfeiture has morphed into a means by which agencies bolster their budgets. The overwhelming percentage of forfeiture cases involve people who have not been convicted or even accused of a crime.

In one legal case, an agency took away a person’s car because it was used in the commission of a crime, even though the owner wasn’t involved in the crime.

Senate Bill 443 by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, was designed to stop the types of abuses mentioned above, without hindering the ability of police agencies to grab the illicit proceeds of drug dealers. It mainly requires police to gain a conviction before taking a person’s property. The bill was moving ahead with strong bipartisan support last year, but then law-enforcement lobbyists derailed it the week before a final Assembly vote. They argued primarily that the reforms would cost their agencies a significant amount of money that’s used for crime fighting and that passage of the reform would stifle their ability to target drug kingpins.

Mitchell revived the bill this year and recently hammered out a compromise. The California Police Chiefs Association and other law-enforcement groups dropped their opposition. In a statement, the chiefs’ association lauded “a compromise that enhances safeguards on Californians’ rights, while ensuring law enforcement has the tools necessary to combat the gangs and drug traffickers damaging our communities.” Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of California seemed equally pleased with the compromise.

MORE ON THE ISSUE:

Diverse coalition of supporters

Broad overview of asset forfeiture

Legislative compromise on the issue

California actually imposes some of the toughest restrictions on asset forfeiture in the nation. Among other restrictions, the law requires a conviction, for instance, for forfeiture when the value of the property is under $25,000. But problems remain because state and local agencies circumvent the state’s law by partnering with federal agencies under a program known as “equitable sharing.” The partnership lets them operate under looser federal standards – and then the locals split the forfeiture proceeds with the federal agencies.

The bill – in its original and amended form – limits the ability of California agencies to do an end run around state law. “The bill would prohibit state or local law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency seeking adoption by the federal agency of the seized property,” according to SB443’s official summary. “The bill would further prohibit state or local agencies from receiving an equitable share from a federal agency of specified seized property if a conviction for the underlying offenses is not obtained … .” The local and state agencies could still participate in joint projects with the federal government and could still receive proceeds – but only if they first secured a criminal conviction in the underlying case.

Under the compromise, however, state officials would not need a conviction to seize “cash or negotiable instruments” above $40,000, whereas the original bill would have required a conviction for all cash seizures. Eighty percent of cash seizures are for less than $40,000, so the compromise protects the vast majority of people who have their cash seized. The average seizure in California is slightly above $5,000. Police agencies say the larger cash amounts usually are the result of drug deals, so the agreement makes sense to both sides. Furthermore, the bill still requires a conviction for the taking of property valued at more than $40,000, such as houses or cars.

That latter point is significant. In one highly publicized case in Anaheim, officials tried to take a commercial building valued at $1.5 million from a couple after one of its tenants was accused of selling $37 in marijuana. The authorities dropped that forfeiture case amid bad publicity, but SB443 is designed to halt those types of takings – where, say, a valuable property is seized simply because a drug crime might have been committed on the premises. The legislation also requires additional reporting from agencies that use the forfeiture process.

The goal is to stop what critics refer to as “policing for profit.” A study from the Drug Policy Alliance reported that some cities “were found to be prioritizing asset forfeiture over general public safety concerns, like response times and sufficient patrol officers.” The report referred to “multiple instances of cash grabs by law enforcement being incentivized over deterring drug sales, wherein police wait until a drug sale concludes and then seize the cash proceeds of the sale rather than the drugs, as drugs must be destroyed and are of no monetary value to law enforcement.”

As Reason’s Scott Shackford pointed out, “As California cities dealt with drops in revenue during the recession over the past decade … participation in the federal program skyrocketed.” But reformers say law enforcement priorities should be shaped by public-safety concerns rather than monetary goals.

Presumably, the final deal will still let agencies grab the dollars of real drug kingpins, while leaving the rest of our property alone – or at least requiring that residents are convicted of wrongdoing before losing it. Both sides believe the right balance has been struck. We’ll see if that’s enough to move the bill through the rest of the legislative process and secure the governor’s signature, but this was a major victory reformers.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

After a failed attempt last year, so-called asset forfeiture — the controversial nationwide practice used by cops to permanently seize property belonging to individuals who have run afoul of the law but have not been convicted — could soon be reformed in California after all, with a once-dead bill making a sudden return.

Laws and loopholes

Senate Bill 443, a popular piece of legislation that went down to defeat once before, “aims to close a federal loophole that allows state and local law enforcement officials to pocket the proceeds and assets seized from a defendant — even if that person is only suspected of a crime,” BuzzFeed News reported. “If passed, the bill would require that a defendant be convicted first before cash and property can be permanently seized.”

“In 2015, despite a near 80 percent approval rating according to some polls, the bill lost 24-41 when it came up for a vote on the Assembly floor. However, California’s legislative process allowed for it to be placed in the inactive file[.]”

The defeat underscored the paradoxes surrounding the practice of asset forfeiture in the Golden State. “California law prohibits local authorities from permanently seizing most property without a conviction, but there’s a loophole in the law — called ‘equitable sharing.’ Local police can seize your property, hand jurisdiction over the feds, and get rewarded with up to 80 percent of the goodies even if prosecutors fail to convict — or even charge — an offender,” Debra Saunders recalled at the San Francisco Chronicle.

Until very recently, following the SB443 setback, in-state civil liberties activists and advocates have struggled to get the traction they hoped for. “California has been a challenge,” as Reason noted. “Not only do state regulations allow law enforcement agencies to seize and keep money and property without actually convicting people; in addition, restrictions the state has put on police (like restricting how much they can keep for themselves) can be bypassed by participating in the federal asset forfeiture program. As California cities dealt with drops in revenue during the recession over the past decade, that’s exactly what governments did — participation in the federal program skyrocketed.”

Successful negotiation

But in May, state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, reactivated SB443, amending it for a vote. Faced with an end-of-summer deadline to put the legislation before her colleagues, Mitchell managed this month to strike a deal with key law enforcement groups, clearing a huge hurdle toward passage.

“Under changes to Mitchell’s bill introduced Thursday, any property seizure in California worth less than $40,000 would now require a criminal conviction before police could take permanent action,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “Seizures higher than that amount would still allow for a lower burden of proof, such as the standard used in civil cases. The $40,000 threshold is an attempt to balance advocates’ desire that those in poverty don’t lose their property unless they’re convicted of wrongdoing and law enforcement’s interest in preserving its ability to go after large criminal enterprises, Mitchell said.”

A stubborn practice

Despite the deal, however, high-profile asset forfeiture cases have cropped up in California throughout the summer. James Slatic, owner of licensed medical cannabis extraction company Med-West Distributors, was raided for the second time this June by a narcotics task force. In January, officers seized “more than 30,000 cartridges of cannabis oil and a couple of pounds of concentrate,” along with “$1.4 million in cash, product and money from various bank accounts” belonging to Slatic, according to Inc. magazine. And in June, “San Diego law enforcement used federal asset forfeiture laws to freeze and seize the company’s cash and the money in Slatic’s personal bank account, the bank account of his wife (who is a federal employee at Veterans Affairs), and his kids’ college savings accounts. The San Diego Sheriff’s Office and San Diego County District Attorney’s Office declined to explain why they seized Med-West’s and the Slatic family’s money, but neither has charged Slatic with a crime.”

In another notable — if less sympathetic — case this month, a judge ruled that the U.S. government “can seize money from life insurance policies taken out by a shooter in the San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack,” the Associated Press reported.

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Against a national backdrop of discord over police killings of black men and deadly anti-police violence, state lawmakers who back law enforcement conduct and transparency reforms are making little progress in Sacramento.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 1286 to initial success. The measure would have classified internal reports that confirmed serious misconduct by law enforcement officers as public records to be made available upon request. In April, the bill won approval in the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 5-1 vote, leading reform advocates to hope the 2016 legislative session wouldn’t be  as disappointing as the 2015 session.

But the measure has yet to receive a vote or any discussion in the Senate Appropriations Committee, effectively killing it from further consideration this legislative session.

The political influence of police unions was seen as the key factor in the bill’s demise. However, unions also appear to have won a receptive audience from some lawmakers to their complaint that Leno was uninterested in working on less far-reaching reforms they might have been willing to consider. The Los Angeles Police Protective League knocked the termed-out lawmaker for preparing his measure “with no input from law enforcement.”

Law enforcement dead-set against asset seizure changes

Another high-profile reform is back for a second time after being rejected late in the 2015 session: SB443 would change state asset seizure rules to require that an individual be convicted of a crime before his or her assets could be seized by law enforcement. Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Manhattan Beach, are leading the fight for the measure, saying current rules allow law enforcement to disregard due process in pursuit of the budget-boosting money they can get by cooperating in federal asset-seizure programs intended to thwart drug trafficking. California agencies got $86 million in 2015 from the U.S.

Mitchell and Hadley argue that the profit motive warps law enforcement’s judgment.

“When you get outside of [the Capitol] you get a general consensus that something like this in its broad form should not be happening in the United States,” Hadley told the Los Angeles Times.

Nevertheless, they made a significant change to their bill in response to past criticism: a section was added to allow seizure of assets from suspects who flee or can’t be found.

That hasn’t assuaged the coalition of police and prosecutors who thwarted the previous version of the bill in the Assembly in 2015 after it won easy passage in the Senate. Its strongest voices depict asset-seizure reform as “a message to drug dealers that the cost of doing business has gone down,” in the words of Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten.

SB443 was rejected by the Assembly 44-24 last September after passing the Senate 38-1 in June 2015. With 63 Assembly incumbents seeking re-election this November — some in districts that now appear more competitive because the “top two” primary change allows moderate candidates to make the general election ballot — the prospects for the measure don’t appear strong.

The high-profile coalition of supporters — which spans the partisan divide with powerful advocacy groups and influential members of both parties — is aiming for a vote in the Assembly next week to block law enforcement from circumventing strict state law by partnering with the federal government in a program called “equitable sharing.”

On the right, Republican consultant Mike Madrid and Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, are urging Republican support while California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton is working with Democrats. 

It’s uncommon for Madrid, who specializes in Latino issues, to weigh in so heavily on policy issues inside the Capitol. But, as he told CalWatchdog, Senate Bill 443 is a “no-brainer” because it upholds the core Republican values of “not preying on the poor” and the right to due process, and, politically, it could make inroads in minority communities that have been disproportionately affected by the current civil asset forfeiture system.

“If you can’t do this, you don’t have a shot at expanding the base,” Madrid said of Republican lawmakers.

Madrid said Republican lawmakers who opposed the measure lacked a “political backbone” because they are “afraid of offending law enforcement,” which is a historically strong ally on the right. 

Madrid added that Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes has a “unique opportunity” to help the poor, which has been a central theme of the Yucca Valley Republican’s agenda since becoming leader in January.

A Mayes spokesperson on Monday told CalWatchdog he had not announced how he would proceed. Mayes voted against the measure in September.  

Those affected

A report issued this month by the ACLU of California showed 85 percent of proceeds from equitable sharing in California go to law enforcement agencies in communities with a majority of people of color.

The study also reported that the counties with higher per capita seizure rates have below average median household incomes and that the number of California law enforcement agencies participating in the equitable sharing program increased from 200 to 232 over the last two years.

Who cares? Isn’t it just drug dealers?

The program was designed to seize the assets of large criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process — which the law would still allow if SB443 were to pass. But as budgets were cut, law enforcement saw it as a viable revenue stream, and the claims of abuse started piling up.

One notable example was the attempted seizure of a $1.5 million building in Anaheim because the landlord rented space to a medical marijuana dispensary (which was legal in CA).

Another case involved Bob Alexander, who had $10,788 in cash that he was about to use to purchase a car for his daughter before the money was seized in Mendocino County because he had medical marijuana on him (along with the doctor’s recommendation for the marijuana, which was shown to police).

Alexander did get his money back eight months later. No charges were ever filed.

Current law

Current California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000, and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value.

Law enforcement can get around that if the seizure is done in coordination with federal law enforcement and 20 percent of the proceeds are kicked up to the federal government. Yet there’s often not even an arrest because federal law doesn’t require it. Instead, there only needs to be suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

People often get their property back after considerable time and frustration — but sometimes they don’t. So the bill, sponsored by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Asm. David Hadley, R-Torrance, would close that loophole and require a conviction for seizure of assets of any amount. Proponents like Mitchell and others say the practice often violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Support builds

It’s not just Republicans whose support is being whipped. A large share of Assembly Democrats either voted against the measure or just didn’t vote, after nearly unanimous support in the Senate.

Burton — who as a member of the Legislature decades ago and authored the bill that established much of the state’s relatively strict civil asset forfeiture laws—- has been reaching out to Democrats.

“I am especially disheartened and disappointed to learn that the state reforms that I and your predecessors worked so hard to put in place have been cast aside by California law enforcement agencies in favor of less protective federal laws,” Burton wrote last week in a letter to Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. Rendon voted in favor of the bill in September.

However, Republicans are in a tighter squeeze than Democrats, wedged between law enforcement and limited government intrusion. But the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association gave lawmakers political cover on Monday when it issued a letter of support, pointing to the sharp increase in seizures from the federally-supported equitable sharing program.

“(T)here is also no denying the fact that law enforcement is largely to blame for the situation that SB443 aims to fix,” wrote David Wolfe, legislative director for HJTA. “Rather than use the federal law selectively, they have overplayed their hand.”

Law enforcement’s position

Opponents of the bill argue that law enforcement doesn’t police for profit, and asset seizure is a vital tool used to cripple criminal organizations, partially by funding costly investigations. The California District Attorneys Association claimed the bill would “deny every law enforcement agency in California direct receipt of any forfeited assets.”

“California’s asset forfeiture law will be changed for the worse, and it will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking,” Sean Hoffman, CDAA’s director of legislation argued in a letter against SB443.

“Narcotics investigations are costly, and the California asset forfeiture law’s dedication of forfeiture proceeds to the seizing law enforcement agencies speaks to the serious resource needs involved when drug traffickers and their ill-gotten gains are pursued,” Hoffman added.

A CDAA spokesperson on Tuesday said the group was still opposed to the measure, but did not lobby against “inactive” bills, which SB443 is at the moment.