[ad_1]
SACRAMENTO — The state Legislature is scheduled to convene for a new two-year session on Dec. 2, but we hope lawmakers are reading the message California voters sent on Election Day.
The message was simple and concise, but many elected officials living in a political cocoon in Sacramento are tone-deaf to voices that don’t come from big campaign donors or special interests. There is a tendency. Most members of Congress tend to ignore different-sounding appeals from the public and all sing the same tune in a guarded echo chamber.
I am primarily referring to liberal Democrats because they run the field and decide policy. But the Republican minority functions essentially the same way. In this era of extreme polarization, private views by members of Congress are not often expressed, at least not openly.
One message from California voters couldn’t be clearer. They’re fed up with toothpaste and bandages locked behind glass doors on store shelves as store owners try to protect their products from petty theft. Voters wanted thieves locked up, not aftershave.
That opinion was accepted with overwhelming approval of Proposition 36, which increases penalties for hard drug offenses, including repeated theft and deadly fentanyl.
It passed by more than 2-1 and passed every county, including normally liberal San Francisco.
Sponsored by the California District Attorney’s Office. The measure partially repeals Proposition 47, a sentencing reduction that voters overwhelmingly approved a decade ago and was funded by major retailers.
Alarmed progressives see Proposition 36 as a reversal of the movement toward criminal justice reform. But that’s not entirely true. Voters are not condoning police misconduct. It wasn’t on the ballot. It simply means that you want to keep repeat shoplifters and robbers locked up.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature fiercely resisted Prop. 36 until pre-election polls showed a landslide victory. After that, the governor and the library clashed rather violently.
However, many moderate Democrats and the mayors of San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco strongly supported the bill.
Marty Wilson, chief political strategist for the California Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said Prop. 36 was prominently promoted by every candidate the organization supported, including in the Democratic-heavy Los Angeles district.
Newsom and the Legislature sought to weaken Prop. 36 by enacting a replacement bill consisting of 13 anti-crime bills. However, these measures did not actually strengthen sentences, and voters ignored them.
The governor and opponents of the proposal argued that crime was actually decreasing in California. Voters didn’t buy it.
“People don’t want to be told that crime rates are low if they have to lock up their razor blades and hairspray,” says Republican strategist Rob Stutzman.
“This election was a real slap in the face for the governor and the Legislature to say they are completely out of sync with voters on crime,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic consultant.
“It wasn’t a question of left or right,” said David Townsend, a longtime Democratic consultant. “It was a ‘duh’ moment. If you go in and steal something, you should go to jail.”
The lesson of Proposition 36 for policymakers: Stop appeasing criminals and start holding them more accountable.
This voting effort is just part of our tough-on-crime message.
Los Angeles County voters favored progressive districts. Atty. Georges Gascon. His victorious opponent, former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman, attacked Gascón as a crime-fighting wimp. Gascón was a key proponent of Proposition 47 in 2014.
In liberal Alameda County, voters overwhelmingly recalled the progressive District state. Atty. Pamela Price is at the center of outrage over crime and homelessness.
“They were progressive members of Congress who really should have been public defenders instead of members of Congress,” said Townsend, who advises moderate Democratic candidates.
The message on criminal accountability also came in part because voters rejected Proposition 6, which would have prohibited prisons from forcing inmates to work. This goal makes sense. Prisoners are sentenced to prison time, not forced labor.
But sponsors stretched the English expression when they touted ending the last vestiges of “slavery.” It didn’t sell.
Supporters of the bill “were saying, ‘This is going to force prisoners to work.'” And voters were saying, “What’s wrong with that?” ” says Maviglio.
Yet another election message was that voters didn’t want politicians lining their pockets any more with tax dollars.
They rejected Proposition 5, which would have reduced the votes needed to pass municipal bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure from two-thirds to 55%.
Lowering voting requirements was fine with me. One-third of the voters should not decide two-thirds of the issues. But most voters seemed to understand that Prop. 5 would lead to the passage of more municipal bonds, which would raise property taxes to repay the borrowings.
Voters also firmly rejected Proposition 33, which would have given local governments more power to control rents, meaning the amount rental property owners can charge tenants. It was thought that the government had too much power.
California voters thus moved away from the far left in Sacramento and toward the center.
But they did not dare to go to the right. It also still approved two large $10 billion bond issues for climate-related projects, including school facilities and wildfire prevention.
California has no intention of going Republican, or even going back to purple. But if Democratic politicians don’t learn from this election, their supermajority advantage in Sacramento could begin to erode.
“The message is very clear,” says Brian Brennan, executive director of the 21st Century Alliance, a Silicon Valley-based organization that promotes the selection of pragmatic problem solvers.
“Most California voters are not ideological. They don’t want rhetoric. They want government to deliver results. Move the needle.”
So, members of Congress, listen up. And especially you, Governor.
[ad_2]Source link
