Not only has it been a disappointing year for the lawmakers and civic leaders behind the recent push for sweeping reforms of California’s criminal justice system, their achievements are under harsh fire in Los Angeles County.

Last December, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, and state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Los Angeles, proposed to largely scrap cash bail on the grounds that it wasn’t essential to getting people to show up for their trials, was destructive of individuals’ lives and would sharply reduce costs and crowding at county jails. But while one of the two related bills the lawmakers introduced passed the Senate on mostly party lines, the other stalled on the Assembly floor, only getting 35 votes in support. The bail bonds industry has strong relationships with both parties, especially in urban areas where bail bond agents are often significant donors.

On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced their support for the measure – but for review and passage in 2018, not the remaining few days of the current legislative session.

The support of Brown and Cantil-Sakauye was depicted as good news by Bonta and Hertzberg. But the governor’s and chief justice’s delay in getting on the bandwagon and the Assembly’s coolness to the concept showed that bail reform never enjoyed as much support as two other recent criminal justice reform measures. Adopted by state voters in 2014, Proposition 47 reclassifies several nonviolent crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies for those without criminal records involving crimes of violence or related to guns. Approved in 2016, Proposition 57 made it easier for those guilty of “nonviolent” crimes to win parole.

Reforms face intense blowback in L.A. County

Now, however, enthusiasm for these reforms has faded in the largest county in the state and nation.

In Los Angeles County, some law enforcement and women’s groups are upset with Proposition 57 over how many of the crimes it considers “nonviolent” involve considerable violence, including types of sexual assaults.

But many local leaders, politicians, law enforcement members and citizens are furious over the effects of Proposition 47. They say it amounts to a “get out of jail free” card for drug addicts who no longer face incarceration for their crimes but who face no punishment when they don’t honor requirements they meet with drug counselors. Anecdotes about addicts being arrested over and over and over without consequence have been common in police circles for more than two years. Similar stories abounded in a harsh October 2015 Washington Post analysis of the early effects of Proposition 47. It concluded the well-meaning state law kept addicts out of jail, but not out of trouble.

These concerns led Los Angeles County supervisors to vote 3-0 on Aug. 15 to set up a commission to examine “the challenges and opportunities” created by Propositions 47 and 57 and AB109, a 2011 state law that “realigned” criminal justice by having those convicted of many “low-level” crimes serve their sentences in county jails instead of state prisons.

The reforms have been the focus of anger over two gun murders on Feb. 20 in Los Angeles County, allegedly committed by convicted felon Michael C. Mejia – one of a family member, the other of Whittier police Officer Keith Boyer. Mejia had been released from state prison 10 months before the killings and the Los Angeles gang member reportedly committed several parole violations without being sent back to state prison before Feb. 20.

After the killings, Whittier Police Chief Jeff Piper and the Los Angeles Police Protective League blamed AB109 and Proposition 47 for making it easier for Mejia to avoid being returned to state prison for breaking parole.

Reformers said Proposition 47 had nothing to do with Mejia’s treatment. They said that while AB109 changed how Mejia was treated after being released from prison, it did so by assigning responsibility for his oversight to the Los Angeles County Probation Department – not the state corrections department.

But the argument that the county was blaming state reforms for its own failings never took hold. The day after officer Boyer’s death, Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell said state reforms were “putting people back on the street that aren’t ready to be back on the street.” He said his jail system had so many dangerous inmates that it amounted to a “default state prison” – undermining claims that reforms would have positive or benign effects on local communities.

The leading proponent of the proposal is California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. She is working on a plan to decriminalize minor traffic infractions by having them handled in civil court instead of criminal court.

Cantil-Sakauye told the Los Angeles Times that it is unacceptable that people who are too poor to pay tickets or who miss court hearings related to the tickets end up in jail or are unable to get to work, wreaking havoc in their lives.

But the change would also help the state court system by limiting how much time criminal courts spend on traffic cases. Reformers say that nearly three-quarters of criminal cases involve traffic tickets, more than 4 million of which are given out annually.

Poor seen as victimized by policies

The shift of such infractions as running a stop sign, illegal lane changes or speeding modestly (up to 15 mph over the limit) to civil courts would involve lowering the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to reasonable certainty – also a change that would save resources.

Momentum for the changes has built in recent weeks after the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area released a report showing unpaid traffic tickets took a heavy toll on the lives of poor Californians.

It noted that from 2006 to 2015, one-sixth of California adults – 4 million people – had their licenses suspended because of unpaid traffic tickets. It documented that nearly four out of five workers commuted in vehicles and argued that the punitive effects of Golden State traffic policies went far beyond reasonable punishments. That’s because while the fines for certain driving offenses are relatively low – $100 for running a red light – state lawmakers for years have added fees to the tickets to help fund state programs. The total ticket cost for running a red light is $490 in California, vastly higher than other states. The result of this approach is state drivers being assessed nearly $10 billion a year for their infractions.

The rationale that criminal penalties are disproportionately and unnecessarily harsh has driven the three other legal reform pushes seen in the state since 2014.

That year, California voters approved Proposition 47, championed by Gov. Jerry Brown. It made state sentencing policies less punitive by classifying many crimes considered “non-serious” and “non-violent” as misdemeanors instead of felonies, unless the defendant had criminal histories of major crimes.

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 57, once again at Brown’s behest. It made it easier for felons to win parole if they have constructive records in prisons and also gave judges the decision-making authority on whether juvenile suspects should be prosecuted as adults, not prosecutors.

Dramatic changes in bail rules win Senate OK

In the current session of the state Legislature, lawmakers are considering perhaps the most far-reaching changes yet. Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, and state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, have each introduced bills that would end the state’s practice of requiring formally accused criminal suspects to pay heavy cash bail. They say there is strong evidence that governments with much less onerous bail policies than California – which has the harshest in the nation – have just as good a record of getting the accused to show up for trials.

Bonta’s and Hertzberg’s bills would yield sharp savings for local governments. That’s because a majority of inmates in county jails are there because they can’t pay bail or afford bail bondsmen who charge a 10 percent of bail fee to guarantee they will show up in court.

Hertzberg’s bill passed the Senate 26-11. But the Assembly is more skeptical. It recently rejected Bonta’s identical bill on a 35-37 vote.

Proposition 57 — the victorious November ballot measure sponsored by Gov. Jerry Brown — continues to spark controversy over its loose definition of “nonviolent” crimes.

The proposition won easy approval despite harsh criticism from district attorneys around the state. The measure writes into the state Constitution guarantees that those convicted of “nonviolent crimes” can be eligible for early parole if they behave well and take part in rehabilitation programs.

But the measure was crafted rapidly in what critics likened to the judicial version of “gut and amend,” transforming what was originally meant to be a ballot initiative reforming juvenile justice into an expansive measure with far-reaching reform goals. The revision was approved by the California Supreme Court despite a stinging dissent from Justice Ming W. Chin who said failure to subject the measure to normal thorough reviews set a poor precedent and made it more likely to be poorly drafted.

Chin’s point was underscored when it came to the public’s attention through the Brock Turner case in Stanford that under Proposition 57, the former college athlete’s sexually molesting an unconscious female student was considered a “nonviolent” crime — among many sex crimes considered “nonviolent” because of Prop. 57’s reliance on crime category labeling dating back to 1976.

Brown: Trust parole officials to protect public

The governor’s counter was that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would never prematurely parole someone guilty of a violent sex crime. But many state lawmakers aren’t persuaded, especially given the corrections agency’s history of scandals and problems.

Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, wants protections against possible early release of sex criminals and other violent felons written into law. She told the Los Angeles Times she is pushing a bill with that goal in hopes of sparking a public debate on what crimes should be added to the list of those technically considered “violent” by the state, starting with violence against children and police officers.

“If you put yourself in the position of a victim in any one of those crimes, you will say, ‘That was violent because that affected me physically and emotionally,’” Bates told the Times.

Bates isn’t the only lawmaker seeking changes.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Roseville, wants cruelty to animals, crimes targeting older people and the kidnapping of children with the intent of using them as prostitutes added to the list.

Assembly members Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, and Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, want all types of rape involving people incapable of giving consent branded as violent crimes.

There is also likely to be interest in adding assault on a domestic partner to the list.

State budget says no early parole for sex offenders

Brown has dismissed criticism of Prop. 57 in his public comments. But the 2017-18 budget Brown released in January contains a de facto response to critics. It explicitly noted that sex offenders would not be considered for early parole.

That’s still not good enough for many district attorneys, who say parole decisions can be challenged in court because of Prop. 57’s language.

Unless Prop. 57 is revised before the 2018 gubernatorial campaign revs up, it is likely to be an issue in that race.

Parole measure’s success depends on CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Good morning! TGIF. As votes are still being counted and we wait for some of the closest contests to be decided, we can start looking forward as to how some new policies will work.

Proposition 57, which amends the California Constitution to make it easier for some felons to win release from state prison, coasted to victory Tuesday, winning more than 60 percent of the vote in initial statewide tallies and giving Gov. Jerry Brown a triumph on an issue — criminal justice reform — that he sees as crucial to his legacy.

The Brown-orchestrated, well-funded Yes on 57 campaign crushed lightly funded opponents, led by the California District Attorneys’ Association. A ballot measure description that used technical, arcane definitions to say the proposition only applied to “nonviolent” felons made victory close to a sure thing. District attorneys’ argument that the definition included many crimes involving violence, including sexual violence — while factual — got little traction.

But for Proposition 57 to be the policy triumph that Brown envisions, it will require improved performance from a state agency that’s faced frequent criticism from oversight agencies, judges and activists for decades: the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is claiming victory in his hotly contested re-election bid, but Democratic opponent Doug Applegate says the numbers are too close to call while there are still 1 million ballots left to count in Orange and San Diego counties. The congressional district straddles the two counties’ border,” writes The Orange County Register.

• Prop. 66, which would speed Death Penalty appeals, is leading in the results but hasn’t been called yet. Regardless, opponents are already challenging it. The Los Angeles Times has more.

• “If Antonio Villaraigosa can cut a path to the California governor’s office, for which he announced his candidacy on Thursday, his widest opening may have come in Tuesday’s election of a polar opposite, Donald Trump. California Latinos voted at a higher rate on Tuesday than in previous elections, according to exit polls, turning out in record numbers to oppose the president elect. If they turn out again in 2018, whether because of the gubernatorial race or broader forces of midterm discontent, more than a decade of voting history suggests Villaraigosa will benefit more than most.” Politico has more. 

• The San Jose Mercury News/Kaiser Health News looks at what a Trump presidency means for Obamacare coverage in California. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @HavikenHayes

Proposition 57, which amends the California Constitution to make it easier for some felons to win release from state prison, coasted to victory Tuesday, winning more than 60 percent of the vote in initial statewide tallies and giving Gov. Jerry Brown a triumph on an issue — criminal justice reform — that he sees as crucial to his legacy.

The Brown-orchestrated, well-funded Yes on 57 campaign crushed lightly funded opponents, led by the California District Attorneys’ Association. A ballot measure description that used technical, arcane definitions to say the proposition only applied to “nonviolent” felons made victory close to a sure thing. District attorneys’ argument that the definition included many crimes involving violence, including sexual violence — while factual — got little traction.

But for Proposition 57 to be the policy triumph that Brown envisions, it will require improved performance from a state agency that’s faced frequent criticism from oversight agencies, judges and activists for decades: the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Under the ballot measure, the corrections department will be directed to give sentence credits to inmates for progress toward rehabilitation as judged by behavior, educational achievements and other factors. The credits are awarded after a formal, documented evaluation process.

With the high-profile problems the corrections department has faced because of overcrowding and prisoner health care so poor that it led to the intervention of a federal judge, officials can deflect blame. A punitive “three strikes and you’re out” justice system overfilled prisons, and governors and legislators balked at building new facilities and adequately funding prison medical needs.

Corrections department rapped for rehab, parole woes

But a review of the Office of the California State Auditor’s records show far-ranging critiques of the corrections department on many other issues as well. Since 2006, the state auditor has issued more than 50 official evaluations of state government performance in which the corrections agency is cited. Most are critical, including two audits that involve tasks exactly like or very similar to those that Proposition 57 expects the agency to handle competently.

A 2011 report looked at Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions, or COMPAS, a software program that officials said would help them identify inmates most likely to be successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into public life.

The report said COMPAS was not used to evaluate all eligible inmates, despite initial promises; was not implemented consistently at the 12 “reception centers” where decisions are made about which prisons should receive new convicts; and faced resistance from corrections officials who didn’t think it was worth their time. The audit said there was a lack of transparency with how COMPAS was implemented and a lack of accountability as to whether it really worked in increasing rehabilitation of prisoners.

A 2008 report said the corrections department regularly ignored state law when processing prisoners for parole. When an inmate is paroled, a discharge review report is required in which parole agents argue for or against release; their recommendations can be overturned by supervisors. Auditors found such reports were not on record for “4,981, or 9 percent, of the 56,329 parolees discharged between January 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008.” They cited concerns that the violent criminal histories of some of these parolees was not considered before their release.

The audit also found examples of the agency breaking its own guidelines in cases in which supervisors overruled parole agents’ recommendations and ordered release of inmates “without documenting the reasons for their decisions.” It also found evidence that supervisors had unilaterally revised discharge reports prepared by parole agents.

The corrections department mostly rejected the 2011 criticisms on its rehabilitation evaluation program. It accepted and agreed with the 2008 report on the need for 100 percent compliance on discharge reports and on the need to “prohibit unit supervisors and district administrators from altering discharge review reports prepared by others.”

The 50-plus audits citing the corrections agency since 2006 can be found on the state auditor’s website: https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/agency/22

Now a much more relatable, explosive controversy looms over the proposed state constitutional amendment — one that threatens its passage and could buffet the U.S. Senate campaign of state Attorney General Kamala Harris and damage Brown’s reputation.

The ballot argument that Harris accepted for Brown’s measure depicts it as a benign proposal to bring common sense to parole decisions by allowing “parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense.”

But according to the California District Attorneys Association, the list of “nonviolent felonies” touted by Brown and accepted by Harris includes crimes of sexual violence — specifically the ones committed by then-Stanford athlete Brock Turner when he sexually violated a passed-out fellow student in January 2015. This screen shot from the CDAA website gives specific examples.

This is unlikely to sit well with the vast cross-range of people who are furious with Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky’s decision in early June to sentence Turner, formerly a member of the Stanford swim team, to six months of imprisonment — much less than the six years sought by prosecutors.

The ruling quickly gained national and international attention. The letter Turner’s victim wrote to him became an Internet sensation. Judge Perksy faces an unprecedented campaign from Bay Area residents who vow to never serve as jurors in his courtroom. Citing the Turner case, members of the California Legislature have moved to toughen sexual assault laws.

The Proposition 57 debate seems likely to eventually merge with the debate over the fairness of Brock Turner’s sentence and whether sexual assault laws should be made much tougher. So far, at least, leaders of the California District Attorneys Association have hesitated to make an explicit connection between the two matters.

But that seems likely to change in coming months when Brown uses his hefty campaign war chest to push his agenda. The Brock Turner case appears to be tailor-made for district attorneys who complain that the media didn’t read the fine print on the governor’s initiative before their initial coverage of it early this year.

By Wayne Lusvardi

New York Times journalist Frank Rich once wrote about the spectacle that surrounded the recall of former California Gov. Gray Davis in 2003:

“Eastern snobs who airily condescended to the spectacle as merely another example of Left-coast madness just didn’t get it. As California goes so goes the nation. It’s Disneyland that prefigures the future, and the action-packed recall ride was nothing if not the apotheosis of the Magic Kingdom.  It was fun. It was instructive. And it set off a chain of unanticipated consequences whose full meaning will become apparent only with time.”

In 2003, former Gov. Gray Davis was facing a nearly $21.1 billion budget deficit, alongside the aftermath of the California Energy Crisis of 2001. California eventually had to issue a $15 billion general obligation bond authorized under Proposition 57 to pay off the budget deficit. It also ended up entering into long-term energy contracts to pay off $42 billion in unpaid bonds on old power plants mothballed to clean the air in 2001, which caused the resulting energy crisis.

Little did Rich know what he was writing about in 2003 might foreshadow the May 16, 2012 announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was pulling financial support from the effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.  This coincidentally came on the heels of Gov. Jerry Brown’s May 12 announcement that California’s budget deficit had ballooned out of control from about $9 billion in January to $16 billion in May.

Was it purely coincidental that these two events were near in time? We don’t know for sure. But Wisconsin public opinion polls showed a 9 percent gap in opinion polls had opened up between the DNC’s recall candidate and Gov. Walker.

Walker recall diminishes

All of a sudden Wisconsin had become Frank Rich’s Tomorrowland.  At one point in 2011, Calwatchdog.com managing editor John Seiler aptly asked: “Will Wisconsin Protests Come to California?”  But following the “law of unanticipated consequences” mentioned by Rich, what happened was the reverse: California’s budget deficit may have sunk any real chances of the Democratic Party to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

When California voters passed Proposition 25 in Nov. 2010, the legislature was given the power to pass a budget with only a majority vote; little did they know what the consequence of that might be in Wisconsin. Writing in the Orange County Register on March 10, 2011, Daniel Weintraub stated: “Democrats are learning that a power they have long sought — to pass a budget with a majority vote — might not be the lever they thought it was going to be… With a Democrat in the governor’s office, that should make for easy sailing for a Democrat-driven budget plan.  But something very different is happening.”

What galvanized the Tea Party to take so many seats in Congressional races across the U.S. in 2010 was not only the issue of Obamacare.  It was also the prospect of other states having to pick up the cost to bail out California’s enormous budget deficit and debts. Did Wisconsin voters see “California coming and got scared” as James Brady once famously put it?  It sure looks like it.  Wisconsin finally found a function for all of California’s political dysfunction.