35 California Democrat Legislators Hide From Voters - Refuse to Vote on Bill
Summary
A bill introduced in the California Assembly, AB 1990 or the STOP Act aims to combat organized retail crime by allowing peace officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting offenses based on probable cause. Key points include:
1. The bill is authored by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, who cites the escalation of organized retail theft as a threat to businesses, the state's economy, and public safety.
2. AB 1990 would amend Section 836 of the Penal Code to permit warrantless arrests for shoplifting violations not committed in the officer's presence, based on probable cause and a sworn statement from a witness.
3. The bill passed the Assembly with a vote of 44-1, with 35 lawmakers not casting a vote, including 32 Democrats and the Assembly speaker.
4. Progressive Democrats were uncomfortable with the bill, fearing it could lead to increased harassment and incarceration of people of color for minor offenses.
5. Assemblymember Ash Kalra was the only legislator to vote "no," while others, like Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, spoke against the bill but did not vote.
6. The article argues that not voting on controversial bills may be detrimental to lawmakers' political interests, as it can be seen as failing to represent constituents.
The summary highlights the key provisions of AB 1990, the concerns surrounding its potential impact, and the voting behavior of California lawmakers on this controversial bill.
AB 1990, the STOP Act, would allow for arrest of people involved in organized retail theft.
Los Angeles Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, vice chairperson of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, introduced Assembly Bill 1990, which would allow police officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting offenses (as in, items that total $950 or less) if officers have probable cause.
"AB1990, the STOP Act, is an urgent call to action in response to the alarming escalation of organized retail theft that threatens the very fabric of our communities. Shoplifting adversely affects both small and large businesses, our state's economy, and the security and well-being of our neighborhoods," said Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles). "It is our responsibility to confront a problem that has been increasingly worsening over time. In my community of Eagle Rock, we have noticed an uptick in organized retail theft with community groups bemoaning stores being broken into and employees being robbed on a weekly basis. Organized groups targeting retail stores have plunged businesses and communities into chaos, creating an environment of disorder for some and instilling fear in consumers, employers, and employees who are uncertain about their safety at work. Stores are closing. Jobs are being lost. It's clear that combating organized retail theft requires a coordinated effort aimed at both prevention and ensuring safety."
While California deals with a dangerous rise in retail theft, AB1990 would permit a peace officer to conduct an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor shoplifting charge, if the officer did not directly observe the shoplifting, provided there is probable cause the individual has engaged in shoplifting.Substance of Change:
addition to PC Section
SECTION 1.
836.
(a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830), without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:California Assembly Bill 1990
Bill Title: Criminal procedure: arrests: shoplifting.
Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 6-2)
Status: (Engrossed) 2024-05-24 - In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. [AB1990 Detail]
Text: Latest bill text (Amended) [HTML]
Voting Records
| Chamber | Vote | Date | Yea | Nay | NV | Abs | Total | Result | Source | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly | AB 1990 Wendy Carrillo Assembly Third Reading | 2024-05-23 | 44 | 1 | 0 | 35 | 80 | Passed | Link | View |
| Assembly | Do pass as amended | 2024-04-09 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | Passed | Link | View |
Social Comments on CA AB1990
How did a shoplifting bill get through California’s liberal Assembly with most Democrats opposed?
Only one legislator in the California Assembly voted against a controversial shoplifting bill while dozens of progressive lawmakers declined to vote.
Assemblymember Ash Kalra did something exceptional last week.
He was the only legislator to vote “no” on a controversial piece of legislation while nearly half of the 80 members in the state Assembly – and a majority of the Democrats – did not vote.
The bill, which would make it easier to arrest shoplifters, is a recent example of a pattern CalMatters revealed in April with legislators dodging votes to avoid offending the bill’s supporters or to eliminate a record of their opposition on controversial topics.
Assembly Bill 1990 passed the Assembly 44-1 last week with 35 lawmakers not casting a vote including 32 of the 62 Democrats and the Assembly speaker, Robert Rivas. Some of those not voting had excused absences, but the Legislature’s online record does not distinguish between an absence, an abstention or not voting.
The bill would allow police to make an arrest for shoplifting without a warrant, even if they did not witness the crime. Los Angeles Assemblywoman Wendy Carillo, who authored the bill with five Democratic and two Republican coauthors, said it is “in response to the alarming escalation of organized retail theft,” which has become a hot-button political issue.
But progressive Democrats, leery of increasing incarceration rates for minor offenses, were uncomfortable with the bill.
“Let’s be clear: AB 1990 will not stop retail theft,” Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood, told her colleagues. “AB 1990 will increase the unnecessary harassment, detention, arrest and mass incarceration of Black and brown Californians.”
She concluded her speech: “I am asking all of you to please vote ‘no’ on AB 1990.”
McKinnor, however, did not vote on the bill.
Her office did not respond to CalMatters’ request for an explanation about why she did not vote despite her clear opposition.
Kalra, of San Jose, also did not respond to a request from CalMatters to explain why he cast the lone “no” vote.
But Kalra has been a longtime champion of progressive causes. He’s a former deputy public defender and the former chair of the Legislature’s Progressive Caucus. He has advocated for legislation that seeks to end systematic racism in the justice system.
For a time, it seemed that Kalra wasn’t going to be the lone Democrat “no” vote on AB 1990.
Fellow Democratic Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles also was listed as voting “no,” according to video of the voting roll call captured by CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.
But Zbur, who chairs the Assembly Democratic Caucus, changed his vote after the bill passed so that he would be formally listed as not voting. In the Assembly, members can change their vote on a bill after a hearing has concluded, as long as it doesn’t change the final outcome.
Asked to explain why he changed his vote, his spokesperson, Vienna Montague, said in an email that Zbur “does not have a comment at this time.”
While AB 1990 survived to advance to the Senate, despite so many lawmakers not voting, other bills haven’t fared as well.
Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes instead of lawmakers voting “no” on them. So far this year, the Digital Democracy database indicates at least 17 bills have died because lawmakers declined to vote.
Meanwhile, Senate and Assembly leaders have repeatedly refused to answer CalMatters’ questions about whether the Legislature’s voting rules should change.
Politicians may think not voting helps their political career in the long-run since they believe it’ll be more difficult for someone to use a controversial “no” vote against them in a campaign ad, said Thad Kousser, a former California legislative staffer who’s now a political science professor at UC San Diego. But he says that’s shortsighted. He said any savvy political operative can just as easily say they “failed to support this bill” in an ad.
Kousser said if lawmakers really do have strong feelings against a bill, they’re better off voting “no.”
“Politicians’ political interests are probably best served by taking a stand that best fits their values and explaining that to voters,” Kousser said.
Not voting, he said, is “just another way of saying, ‘I didn’t represent you on this bill.’ ”
Comments
Post a Comment