Prosecutors in California joined retailers this year to qualify a ballot initiative that would roll back 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 Walmart’s board share a common vision for fighting crime?
Law enforcement officials have been calling for changes to Prop 47 since voters approved it in 2014.
Retailers, including small shops, supermarket chains and major giants, have become increasingly concerned about the policy since a spike in shoplifting during the pandemic. They qualified Prop 47 for the November ballot through a coalition that combined the DA’s political reach and retailers’ money.
Now Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders are plotting to get the measure off the ballot before the June 27 deadline by pulling coalition partners in opposite directions. The Democratic-led Legislature is moving forward with a series of bills that address many of retailers’ concerns, including a new crime category for serial theft and a crackdown on the resale of stolen goods.
The DAs have called the proposals inadequate, arguing that the only way to combat shoplifting is to make changes to Prop 47, and the only way to make changes to Prop 47 is to bring it back to the voters.
Last week, Democrats announced they would amend the bill to repeal the laws if voters approved the initiative.
“If a ballot measure purporting to address shoplifting and fentanyl issues is approved by voters this fall, aspects of these laws will simply not apply and conflicts will arise,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat, said at a press conference. this afternoon. “We must solve our crime problem with carefully considered legislation that addresses the problem, because that is the way to solve it – not through blunt force, but through thoughtful solutions.”
The head of the voting coalition said the move to add amendments appeared designed to force retailers to choose between the two legislative efforts. “There is absolutely no policy basis for including them other than to put pressure on supporters and sow division among those seeking criminal justice reform,” Greg Totten, CEO of the California District Attorneys Association, said in a statement .
Some of these differences have already emerged in responses to the legislature’s amendments. Rachel Michelin, head of the California Retailers Association, told POLITICO that the legislative package addresses her members’ key concerns about shoplifting and that she agrees with the new urgency clauses in the bills, which would make them effective immediately.
She chafed at the inoperability clauses that would repeal the laws if the ballot measure were to pass in November. “On the one hand, I understand: it’s political,” she said. “But on the other hand, it is frustrating.”
Michelin represents a range of small and large retailers in the state, but not necessarily the views of some major stores like Walmart and Home Depot, which invested millions of dollars to qualify the ballot measure and have not yet commented on legislative developments. .
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, on the other hand, sounded the alarm this weekend about what he called “an imminent threat to our collective efforts to reform Prop 47.” and anyone who might support the enhanced accountability sought by the ballot measure.
Republican leaders in the Legislature were also highly critical of the inoperability clauses, noting that they supported the contents of the bipartisan package but could not support the versions with the new amendments.
“These bills are good. They passed both houses, with very strong bipartisan support,” Republican Leader James Gallagher told POLITICO. “Let’s get them through without any gamesmanship, without any last-minute tricks.”
For the law enforcement officials behind the initiative, a tough stance against Democrats in Sacramento comes largely without cost: Many of the most vocal officials represent conservative-leaning voters who are more adamant about tough-on-crime policies.
But the stores, which would likely have to bear the eight-figure costs of a ballot campaign, are also accountable to shareholders and consumers – meaning they are more likely to consider the pragmatic benefits of a compromise (namely not spending millions to strengthen the measure) . fall).
“While a lot of things have been said publicly and privately, I also think there is a lot more clarity about where people are and where the conversations need to be had,” said Daniel Conway of the California Grocers Association. Chief among them: “Going back to the vote is probably the fundamental sticking point.”
