California prosecutors joined retailers this year in qualifying a ballot initiative that would overturn parts of Proposition 47, the decade-old law that reduces penalties for theft and drug possession.
The big question now is: How long can rural sheriffs and the Walmart board share a common vision for fighting crime?
Law enforcement officials have I demanded changes to Proposition 47 since voters approved it in 2014.
Retailers, including small stores, grocery chains and big-box giants, have become increasingly concerned about this policy since some forms of retail theft increased during the era of the pandemic. They qualified Proposition 47 for the November ballot with a coalition combining the DA’s political reach and retail money.
Now Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders plot to remove the ballot measure before the June 27 deadline by pulling coalition partners in opposite directions. The Democratic-led Legislature is moving forward with a series of bills addressing many of retailers’ concerns, including a new crime category for serial thefts and a crackdown on the resale of stolen goods.
The DAs called the proposals insufficient, arguing that the only way to combat retail theft is to make changes to Proposition 47, and that the only way to make changes to Proposition 47 is to report to voters.
Last week, Democrats announced that they would change the bill to repeal the laws if voters approved the initiative.
“If a ballot measure supposed to address the problems of retail theft and fentanyl is approved by voters this fall, some aspects of these laws simply will not be enforceable and there will be conflicts,” the president said. Assemblyman Robert Rivas, a Democrat, during a news conference. this afternoon. “We should solve our crime problem with carefully considered legislation that addresses the problem, because that is how we will solve it – not through brute force, but through informed solutions.”
The leader of the ballot measure coalition said the decision to add amendments appeared intended to force retailers to choose between the two legislative efforts. “There is absolutely no political justification for including them except to pressure supporters and divide those seeking criminal justice reforms,” Greg Totten, CEO of the California District Attorneys Association, said in a statement .
Some of these differences have already emerged in response to Parliament’s amendments. Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Association, told POLITICO the legislative package addresses many of her members’ key concerns about retail theft and that she agrees with the new emergency clauses contained in bills, which would make them effective immediately.
She was upset about inoperability clauses that would repeal the laws if the ballot measure passed in November. “On the one hand, I get it: It’s politics,” she said. “But on the other hand, it’s frustrating.”
Michelin represents a range of small and large retailers across the state, but not necessarily the views of…
