Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing the Trump administration’s attempt to defy the intent of a new state law banning privately run prisons and detention centers.

On Oct. 11, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 32, liberal activists rejoiced. Private prisons are considered far more likely to be inhumane and generally use non-union workers. Private detention centers holding unauthorized immigrants are seen as a symbol of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that has become a target for the left since President Donald Trump’s election.

But while the law takes effect Jan. 1, it allows existing contracts to be honored. Five days after Newsom’s signing of AB32, ICE put out a solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website for contractors to run detention centers in the general areas of Northern California, Los Angeles and San Diego that had a total of 5,000 beds.

A month later, California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris and 19 fellow Democrats in the Golden State’s House of Representatives delegation are crying foul. They say ICE is flouting normal procedures in an attempt to ensure three existing facilities keep operating.

“Given the timing and terms of this solicitation – particularly in light of ICE’s history of suspect contract activities and insufficient oversight – we are understandably concerned that the solicitation is intended to favor incumbent contractors,” the 21 Democrats wrote in a letter to several federal agencies. “If so, these efforts would be in direct contradiction with the spirit of full and open competition required by federal procurement law.”

The solicitation asked for interested parties to respond within two weeks instead of the usual 30 days. It also specified that bidders had to have “turnkey ready” facilities with specific ranges of available beds. The contracts are for five years, with the option for two five-year extensions.

Democrats say bidding process is rigged

Democrats said this ensured that the only applicants would be the three companies that are already running federal immigration detention centers in California: GEO Group, which has centers in Adelanto in the Inland Empire and Bakersfield; CoreCivic, which runs a center in San Diego; and the Management and Training Corp., which has one in Calexico in Imperial County, east of San Diego.

ICE signed a $62 million contract with GEO for the Adelanto facility in March in which GEO was the only bidder. Democrats didn’t object to the contract at the time but now say it also was awarded in a way that violated the spirit of federal procurement laws by essentially ensuring only one company had a chance to win.

But an ICE official told the Palm Springs Desert Sun that the agency “remains compliant with federal contract and acquisitions regulations, as we advertise opportunity notices and subsequently implement the decision process.”

AB32’s author – Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland – blasted ICE in comments to the Desert Sun, saying the agency was attempting to “circumvent the will of the people of California.”

ICE’s parent agency – the Department of Homeland Security – has a history of claiming more flexibility under federal rules than its critics say it has. The same goes for the Trump administration, most notably in its use of $6.1 billion in defense funding to build sections of a border wall without congressional authorization.

In their letter to DHS and other agencies, the California Democratic lawmakers asked for information on how ICE crafted its solicitation for detention center bids.

Their chances of getting a quick response are unclear. ICE has long faced criticism over its handling of public record requests, which it is supposed to respond to in 20 days or less. The agency was sued earlier this month by the Project on Government Oversight for allegedly withholding information over how it used facial recognition and other technology in surveillance and data collection programs.

Opponents of rent control and new restrictions on how landlords treat tenants succeeded in either weakening or blocking bills that needed to advance last week to have a chance of being enacted this legislative session.

Coming seven months after voters decisively rejected Proposition 10, a statewide rent control measure, the setbacks were a fresh reminder of the limited political clout of renters – even in a state where millions of residents’ complaints about the cost of housing are a constant of life.

Assembly Bill 1482, by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, was the focus of the most wrangling. Inspired by a similar law newly adopted in Oregon, the original bill would have limited annual rent increases to 5 percent plus the federally reported increase in California’s consumer price index. It had a 2030 sunset clause.

But after intense opposition by the California Association of Realtors and other business groups who said it would discourage housing construction in a state with a huge housing shortage, Chiu agreed to concessions that were so significant that most critics took a neutral stand on his bill, starting with Realtors.

It now limits rent increases to 7 percent plus consumer price index inflation and sunsets in 2023. It also doesn’t apply to housing projects built in the last 10 years or to landlords renting 10 or fewer units.

The bill doesn’t apply to housing units in areas where local rent-control laws are in place and puts no limit on how much rent can be increased after a tenant moves out.

But even with Chiu’s concessions, AB 1482 still only got the votes of 43 of 80 Assembly members. Chiu’s fellow Democrats made up the big majority of the 31 no votes. Even with reduced business opposition, the bill may not make it through the state Senate.

Tenant protection bill fails without getting committee vote

Yet it still fared much better than Assembly Bill 1481, by Assembly members Tim Grayson, D-Concord, and Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, which would have set up a “just cause” bureaucratic process that most landlords would have to follow to evict tenants for reasons other than failure to pay rent, property damage or repeated violations of rules. The process would have required landlords to provide a written reason for the eviction, then give renters an opportunity to correct problems that were cited.

“If landlords wanted to move into the property, intend to remodel it or were seeking eviction for other circumstances that were not tenants’ fault, property owners would in most cases have had to provide relocation assistance,” a Los Angeles Times analysis noted.

AB 1481 never even come up for a committee vote, reflecting a lack of enthusiasm for the bill by the Assembly’s Democratic leaders.

In a statement issued by Grayson, he praised the Assembly for passing the rent-control measure, but said “rent-gouging protections are not enough when tenants can still be evicted without cause or due process.”

AB 1482 did include one notable tenant protection. It says landlords of properties covered by the bill cannot seek evictions solely because they want to raise rent by more than the measure allows.

Meanwhile, an aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom said he was pleased by the measure’s passage. Newsom called for lawmakers to enact some form of rent control in a February speech and again in April.

2018 rental data suggest bill will have limited effect

But rental statistics for 2018 compiled by the RENTCafé website suggest AB 1482 won’t necessarily have a substantial effect on landlords. According to the state Department of Finance, California had a 3.7 percent increase in its consumer price index in 2018. (Federal figures for the Golden State were not available.) That means under Chiu’s bill, landlords probably could have raised rates by about 10.7 percent in homes covered by AB 1482.

But according to RENTCafé data, that’s much less than the average rent increase seen in the California cities with the highest percentage hikes in 2018 – Los Angeles (6.6 percent), Fresno (5.7 percent), Riverside (5.6 percent) and Long Beach (5.5 percent).

By far the most buzz is going to Assembly Bill 1842 by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, that is being framed as much different than Proposition 10, which lost by 18 percentage points in November. Chiu says his bill would prevent “rent gouging.”

Instead of the hard caps on rent increases seen in many local rent control ordinances adopted by California cities before 1995, Chiu’s measure would ban landlords from increasing rents each year by more than an as-yet-undetermined percentage more than inflation.

Oregon recently became the first state in the nation to adopt an “anti-gouging” rent law. The measure limits annual rent increases to inflation plus 7 percent for existing tenants in buildings that are at least 15 years old. Rents can go up by more than that when apartments are vacated, but the law contains additional protections meant to prevent landlords from seeking to evict tenants with solid records of timely rent payments solely so they can raise the rent.

UC Berkeley researchers concluded that if a similar law passed in California, 4.9 million homes, condos and apartments would be covered.

Some landlord and business groups didn’t oppose the bill as it moved through the Oregon Legislature – seeing it as preferable to the harder, smaller caps that some state lawmakers and activist groups preferred and that polls suggest are popular.

But stronger and more consistent opposition to Chiu’s bill looms in California. “We need to encourage new housing, not create policies that stifle its creation,” Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, told the Bay Area News Group. He said any state law capping rent increases would be counterproductive and ineffective at remedying the housing crisis.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has not taken a public stand on Chiu’s bill. Last month, however, he told lawmakers at his State of the State address, “Get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it.”

Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, has also once again introduced a bill including more traditional rent control provisions. Assembly Bill 36 would allow local governments to mandate rent control on apartments and single-family homes as soon as they were 10 years old. Landlords with only a few units would not be covered.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, has also once again introduced a bill meant to make it significantly more difficult to evict tenants. Assembly Bill 1481 would set a statewide “Just Cause for Evictions” standard. Most cities already have such policies.

The least controversial measure affecting renters was proposed by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland. Assembly Bill 724 would set up a state housing information clearinghouse that would list all available units, their monthly rents, how long units were vacant and how many tenants are evicted. Landlords would be required to submit this information on a timely basis.

Wicks thinks this would lead to more informed decisions on housing by the Legislature and the Newsom administration.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The California Legislature’s determination to lessen the amount of sugary drinks consumed by state residents may never have been greater than now – at least if the metric used is the number of bills introduced. This session, five will be taken up, and more may be on the way.

For the third time, Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, has introduce a measure that would tax soda and other beverages sweetened with sugar.

The first two times, Bloom’s measure didn’t get out of committee after it faced intense, well-funded opposition from the American Beverage Association.

But Bloom told his hometown paper, the Santa Monica Daily Press, that the tax was urgently needed to nudge people to stop consuming so many unhealthy drinks.

“Everyone would acknowledge that health care costs are skyrocketing,” he said. “Diabetes and obesity are ongoing health-care crises and we need to get serious about prevention.”

Revenue from the tax – which has not been established yet but which was 2 cents per ounce in Bloom’s previous bills – would pay for programs meant to reduce diabetes and obesity. Bloom said 9 percent of state residents are diabetic and nearly half are at risk of developing diabetes.

Measure would ban Big Gulp-size sodas

Bloom’s bill will have plenty of similar company this year.

Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, proposes a ban on soda servings of larger than 16 ounces in seal-able cups sold at restaurants and grocery stores. A similar ban in New York City was thrown out by New York state courts – but not for a reason that has relevance in California. Judges repeatedly held that the New York City’s health board overstepped its powers in imposing the ban and should have deferred to the New York state Legislature.

Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, hopes to end the common practice of displaying sodas near the checkout stands of food, convenience and other retail stores.

Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, is for the fourth time proposing that sugary drinks sold in California have labels warning of their health risks. Monning said if tobacco products’ health risks are made plain with warning labels, so should the risks of soda.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, is touting a bill intended to prevent beverage companies from offering stores special deals with lower prices for sugary drinks.

Studies split on effect of Berkeley soda tax

Soda foes got good news on Feb. 21 when the American Journal of Public Health published a study saying that soda consumption plunged 52 percent in Berkeley in the first three years after the city adopted a soda tax. 

But other research into Berkeley’s soda tax is far less encouraging, according to University of Southern California professor Michael Thom. He told the Santa Monica newspaper there was no evidence that residents reduced their caloric or sugar consumption and asserted there is little, if any, proof that soda taxes have a positive effect on human health.

A Harvard Business Review study based on an analysis of millions of transactions at California stores by Duke University professors Bryan Bollinger and Steven Sexton was also skeptical of claims of success in Berkeley. Published in January 2018, it noted that since most residents worked outside of Berkeley, they could readily buy cheaper soda elsewhere. The study also pointed to a factor not mentioned in any recent newspaper coverage of soda taxes:

“We found that much of the cost of the tax is not being passed along to consumers,” Bollinger and Sexton wrote. “Fewer than half of supermarkets changed the price of soda in response to the tax, and prices at chain drug stores did not change at all.”

The Ballotpedia overview of Proposition 64 reflected the conventional wisdom at the time it passed: “Local governments were also allowed to completely ban the sale of marijuana from their jurisdictions.” The text of the ballot measure stated: “Allows local regulation and taxation of marijuana.”

And as CalWatchdog has reported, 80 percent of local governments have declined to authorize the opening of local pot stores.

But last week, the state Office of Administrative Law approved rules crafted by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control that say marijuana sales by delivery services can operate in any community – even if local governments object.

This led to an immediate backlash – and strong hints that the rules will lead to a court fight.

“This decision puts the public safety needs of communities across the state at risk,” Carolyn Coleman, executive director of the League of California Cities, said in a statement.

“We are deeply concerned with the adoption of the new cannabis regulations, which allow for the delivery of cannabis anywhere in the state. We are already having trouble enforcing a new and complex industry, and this allowance will only make enforcement even more difficult,” California Police Chiefs Association President David Swing told the Sacramento Bee.

Marijuana industry officials disputed the idea that the deliver-anywhere ruling went against the spirit of Proposition 64 or its language. They said the ruling reflected the will of Californians, who approved the measure 57 percent to 43 percent – a 2 million vote cushion.

But even some supporters of Proposition 64 appeared unsure if the cannabis bureau’s ruling squared with what the ballot measure said. Assemblyman Ron Bonta, D-Oakland, told the Associated Press that he thought only medicinal marijuana deliveries should be allowed. Bonta thinks clarifying new legislation may be in order.

Even with such legislation, lawsuits over the state regulations appear inevitable. California has decades of history of courts being asked to interpret poorly or vaguely written ballot measures approved by voters.

City attorney says Sonoma should defy state

The city of Sonoma could also be a flash point for local defiance of the state. After the cannabis bureau concluded that there should be no limits on recreational marijuana deliveries, the Sonoma Index-Tribune reported last month that Sonoma City Attorney Jeff Walter recommended to City Council members that they maintain their ban on recreational pot deliveries.

Walter criticized the rules as being “very vague” and said he did not consider them a legally binding “statute.”

“I think we should stay that course [of banning recreational deliveries] pending outcome of that regulation and the challenges that are likely to be against it,” he said.

Questions about the legality of marijuana deliveries are also coming from other quarters. On Monday, the Sacramento Bee reported that California Highway Patrol officers continue to arrest drivers and seize cannabis that they find during traffic stops of vehicles used for deliveries.

A CHP spokesperson told the Bee that “in order to legally transport cannabis in California for commercial purposes, a person must possess the appropriate [state] license and comply with [cannabis bureau] administrative regulations.”

Two licensed marijuana distributors who had $257,000 seized from them by the CHP have filed a lawsuit to try to get the money back. They insist that they had the proper credentials when the money was taken.

Seven months after her office released sweeping recommendations for reform of California’s bail system, state Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye may have a chance to force changes without going through the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown.

Last week, the state Supreme Court agreed to take up a January appellate court ruling that took dead aim at a bail system that some say turns county jails into “debtor prisons.” More than half of jail inmates are there not because of convictions but because they can’t raise bail, which usually requires providing a bail bonds office with cash or property worth 10 percent of the total bail sum. California has the highest cash bail rates of any state, according to Human Rights Watch.

“A defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty,” Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline said in a 3-0 decision of the 1st District Court of Appeal that ordered a new bail hearing for Kenneth Humphrey, a retired maintenance worker living in San Francisco who was accused of threatening a neighbor, stealing a bottle of cologne and $5, and demanding more money. Humphrey said he was seeking payment of a debt. But a judge followed a standard bail schedule that took note of Humphrey’s previous felony convictions and set his bail at $600,000, which was later reduced to $350,000.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, which he had requested after state Attorney General Xavier Becerra chose not to appeal the appellate ruling. “We’re pleased,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I’ve made it very clear that I’m not a proponent of money bail. But getting rid of money bail doesn’t entail that we will never have pretrial detention. There are still some people that are going to be either a flight risk or dangerous, and what we have now is a state of the law that is unclear, and the standard in terms of dangerousness may be way too high.”

Cantil-Sakauye urged bail changes in 2016 speech

While the appellate ruling was stayed pending the state high court’s ruling, criminal justice reformers were hopeful that Cantil-Sakauye’s history hints at the court’s eventual decision.

The chief justice conveyed her support for bail reform in her 2016 State of the Judiciary speech. A task force she convened issued a report in October that said the state’s system “unnecessarily compromises victim and public safety because it bases a person’s liberty on financial resources rather than the likelihood of future criminal behavior” and was “unsafe and unfair.” It called for pretrial assessments that would help judges gauge the risk posed by each defendant and for “pretrial programs [that] would also give judges more tools to supervise defendants, such as drug testing, home confinement, and text reminders for court dates.”

This approach was used with Humphrey, 64, after the appellate court ruling overturned his $350,000 bail. He was released from jail after agreeing to supervised around-the-clock detention at a substance abuse facility and to wearing an ankle monitor.

Despite lobbying from Cantil-Sakauye, Gov. Jerry Brown and progressive and civil rights groups, the Legislature has so far been mostly cool to two years of efforts led by Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, to scrap the state’s money bail system. Their legislative proposals mirror the recommendations of the chief justice’s task force. One version passed the state Senate last year on a party-line vote before stalling; another was rejected by the Assembly.

Spurred by recent mass shootings, the legislation, introduced by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, and co-authored by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, would allow residents to “voluntarily add their name to the California Do Not Sell List for firearms.”

“A lot of the political opposition to efforts California has taken to address gun violence is around government telling people what they can and cannot do,” Bonta told the SacBee. “This is different. This is an individual saying, ‘I want to do this. I’m choosing to do this.’ We think it will save lives.”

Of the roughly 38,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2016, about two-thirds were suicides. In California alone, there were nearly 1,600 suicides with guns in 2016.

While a controversial topic, the issue of guns and suicide are inextricably linked. Research suggests that suicide attempts are an impulsive act, and firearms offer a disproportionately lethal means.

The bill is not without its opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, with some expressing concern that the law could be abused.

To join the list, a person would provide the names and contact information for five people. These contacts would be informed if the person attempted to buy a firearm. Additionally, while those on the list may not be able to legally purchase a firearm, they would not be liable for “any criminal or civil penalty for purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm.” Those who knowingly sell firearms to Californians on the list, however, would be subject to penalties.

The law would require the state to regularly add people on the list to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

People on the list would need to wait a year before removing themselves; however, to remove themselves earlier, they could provide testimony from a medical professional that they are not a risk to themselves or others. The state would “expunge records related to the person’s inclusion in, and removal, from, the Do Not Sell List.”

Last week could be remembered as a turning point for California criminal justice as state Attorney General Xavier Becerra

Becerra did so with his announcement that he would not challenge a state appellate court ruling that ordered a new bail hearing for a retired shipyard worker in San Francisco who had been held in jail for more than eight months, unable to raise $350,000 bail. Kenneth Humphrey was accused of threatening a neighbor and stealing from his apartment.

The appellate panel held it was unacceptable to set bail so high for a defendant who appeared to not be a public threat. Becerra agreed with the finding and going forward essentially encouraged public defenders to routinely challenge bail they found unjust by saying his office would no longer defend heavy bail or bail that was imposed by local judges without a consideration of flight and safety risks or bail alternatives.

The state’s harsh bail practices were the target of legislation meant to end the “money” bail system that Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, introduced in late 2016. Senate Bill 10 would have in many cases eliminated bail, based on assessments of the accused’s flight risk and danger to the public. It also would have directed judges to consider the ability of accused individuals to raise bail.

The Hertzberg-Bonta initiative was in response to complaints from civil rights groups that heavy bail destroyed lives by costing the accused their jobs or their ability to attend school and preventing them from becoming productive individuals. More than half of those in county jails in California are there because of an inability to make bail, not any convictions.

Governor, chief justice negotiating final reform plan

The measure made some progress last year until it was abruptly pulled on Aug. 25 with an announcement from Gov. Jerry Brown that he and state Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye would work with Hertzberg and Bonta to fine-tune their measure before bringing it back to the Legislature this year.

“I believe that inequities exist in California’s bail system and I look forward to working this fall on ways to reform the system in a cost-effective and fair manner, considering public safety as well as the rights of the accused,” the governor said in a statement.

Brown is looking to carve out a late-career legacy on criminal justice reform, playing a key role in the adoption in 2016 of Proposition 57, which makes it easier for those accused of nonviolent and some violent crimes to win parole. Crime experts have long pointed out that crime is largely a young man’s game and that nations with relatively few prisoners in their 40s or 50s are at least as safe as the United States.

But the strength of the case for bail reform so far is somewhat murkier in the United States. While some local governments report success – notably in New Orleans – a bold bail reform law that took effect on Jan. 1, 2017, in New Jersey at the behest of then-Gov. Chris Christie has proven controversial. It uses algorithmic tools to determine whether cash bail should be assessed.

While the new law is credited with reducing New Jersey’s jail population 19 percent in its first five months, one of the algorithm’s decisions didn’t work out. The tool recommended the release last April of a Bridgeton, New Jersey, man named Jules Black, 30, after he had been arrested on suspicion of being a felon in illegal possession of a firearm. Days later, Black allegedly killed Christian Rodgers, 26, a neighborhood adversary, after shooting at him 22 times.

Rodgers’ mother, June, is suing Christie, the inventor of the bail assessment tool and others, seeking wrongful death damages and an injunction preventing further use of the bail algorithm.

The 2017 session of the California Legislature may be remembered as when the criminal justice reform movement in America’s largest state lost its momentum.

The movement entered the session with a head of steam after winning majority support from the Legislature and then the public for Proposition 47 in 2014 and for Proposition 57 in 2016. The former measure reclassified dozens of “nonviolent” and “nonserious” offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The latter made it easier for nonviolent felons to win parole.

This year, the same rationale that civil liberties groups, progressive think tanks and minority organizations offered for Propositions 47 and 57 was invoked in seeking sweeping statewide bail reform and a pilot program allowing drug addicts to inject themselves in safe settings in several cities and counties. That rationale: California’s criminal justice system is not only far too punitive, it focuses too much on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation.

State Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, led the push for putting sharp limits on the state’s money bail system in favor of a system that largely trusted suspects without serious criminal histories to not go on the lam. They argued that California’s highest-in-the-nation bail requirements were unnecessary to get the accused to show up for trial and had the effect of destroying lives of suspects by forcing them to spend months in jail, unable to post 10 percent of their bail and secure a guarantee from a bail bondsman.

The fact that more than half the people in state jails are there not because they had been convicted of crimes but because they can’t post bail resonated not just with those who saw bail laws as unfair but with those who saw the system as wildly expensive.

This prompted optimism from Hertzberg in an interview with the Los Angeles Times before the 2017 session began: “Now you have a whole host of groups on both sides of the aisle looking at the cost and fairness of the system,” he said.

But the high point for the reform push came on May 31, when Hertzberg’s SB10 passed the Senate 26-11. A day later, the Assembly rejected AB42, Bonta’s identical bill, on a 35-37 vote.

Supporters of the measures expressed frustration that the governor waited until late August to offer support – and then only with the proviso that the bills be taken up in 2018, not in the closing days of the 2017 session. But it’s an open question whether Brown could have muscled the measures to passage. While other local and state governments have reported success with bail reform, Maryland’s adoption of no-cash bail reform last year has won wide attention for its troubled start. The Washington Post reported in July that the number of trial no-shows had more than doubled under the new system.

No to ‘government-sanctioned drug dens’

The other proposed reform made similar halting progress before being put aside for possible reconsideration in 2018. AB186 by Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton, would have established safe areas in a handful of cities and counties for drug users to inject themselves without fear of being charged with crimes, among several provisions. Drug law reformers argued that this would reduce the carnage from the opioid crisis by making it easier to treat overdoses and by getting addicts in touch with health care professionals. The program would lapse in 2022.

But law enforcement groups voiced sweeping objections to the law, saying it would create “government-sanctioned drug dens with no requirement that participants enter treatment,” in the words of a state Senate analysis, among many criticisms.

The bill passed the Assembly on June 1 with 21 votes – the bare minimum for approval – before being rejected by the Senate on Sept. 12 after gaining only 17 of the needed 21 votes.

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.