Connect with us

Politics

California voters wanted stricter penalties for crime. Can reformers find a new message?

Published

on

California voters wanted stricter penalties for crime. Can reformers find a new message?

Criminal justice reform advocates spent the summer warning that efforts to oust California’s progressive district attorneys and undo sentencing reforms would undermine a decade of work aimed at reducing mass incarceration, prioritizing rehabilitation and holding police accountable for excessive force.

Come November, voters didn’t listen.

In Los Angeles County, Nathan Hochman, a former federal prosecutor and onetime Republican, unseated George Gascón as district attorney. Progressive firebrand Pamela Price was recalled in Alameda County. And Proposition 36, which will lengthen jail and prison sentences for some drug and theft charges, passed by double-digit margins in all but one of the state’s 58 counties.

After those resounding election defeats, some political strategists wonder whether reform-minded candidates need to readjust their messaging. Many reform movement leaders and progressive prosecutors, however, have shown no signs of backing down.

Roy Behr, a longtime consultant to Democratic campaigns in Los Angeles, warned that a perceived failure to find middle ground on criminal justice issues risks further alienating voters who want answers to visible signs of unrest — like smash-and-grab robberies and open-air drug use on city streets.

Advertisement

“The choices have basically been crackdown or it’s time for reform, and there’s been very little nuance in the back-and-forth,” said Behr. “Voters want police to behave fairly and justly. They also want to be able to go to a store and not worry if someone is going to come running through and do a smash and grab.”

In the L.A. County district attorney race, Gascón held tight to his vision of restorative justice and alternatives to prison, standing against Proposition 36 while polls showed broad public support for the measure.

Following his victory, Hochman told The Times he thinks his opponent and other progressives offered the public a false binary between reform and safety.

Although he spent much of his campaign positioning himself as someone who could restore justice in a version of Los Angeles County that he likened to “Gotham City” under Gascón, Hochman rejects the idea that he was a mere “tough on crime” candidate. Criminal justice, he argues, is more complex than that.

“For the first time in a very long time, a centrist running as an independent won a race where the media and my opponent were trying to hyper-politicize the race into different political camps,” Hochman said. “I think what will end up happening is that the idea that you don’t have to choose between prioritizing safety and instituting real and effective criminal justice reform will be proven over the next four years.”

Advertisement

Hochman said he thinks progressives have lost touch with the average California voter. He argued that Gascón excelled at highlighting problems — such as the need to prosecute police officers when they break the law and the over-incarceration of low-level criminals and nonviolent drug users — but did little to effect change in those areas.

“Gascón said it was very progressive not to charge people who were engaged in drug use, use of meth, heroin and fentanyl … but he had no answer for the fact that roughly six homeless people were dying every day from overdoses,” Hochman said.

Gascón declined an interview request. Other California reform advocates, however, rejected the idea that the election results were a repudiation of progressive policies.

Cristine Soto DeBerry — executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance, which advocates for progressive district attorneys in California — argued that frustrations over property crime and homelessness that drove voters to support Proposition 36 represented dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system at large, including the police.

Critics often say prosecutors like Gascón and Price — who often declined to file low-level misdemeanors and sought to keep most defendants out of jail before trial — can cause surges in petty crimes such as shoplifting and car burglaries. But DeBerry and others contend that it is the failure of police to make arrests that emboldens criminals.

Advertisement

According to California Department of Justice records, more than 9 million property crimes were reported in the state between 2014 and 2023. Police statewide solved approximately 711,000 of them, less than 1%, records show.

“These measures passed across the board, and most of the counties in this state are run by very traditional, regressive prosecutors, and their voters said you’re not doing enough,” DeBerry said.

Tinisch Hollins, the executive director of the reform-focused nonprofit Californians for Safety and Justice, said Proposition 36 “disguised itself” as a way to offer treatment for substance use disorders. The measure was presented to voters as rehabilitation-focused by including a tenet that offered defendants a choice between treatment and prison if convicted of an addiction-related felony for a third time.

Hollins said her biggest fear is that those in need of treatment still won’t receive it under the new measure.

“County jail will just become a holding tank for people who desperately need treatment,” she said.

Advertisement

Hollins said the reform movement “doesn’t need a rebrand” and will continue to focus on reducing California’s “reliance on incarceration” even as the state enters a “totally new environment” postelection.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and others have expressed similar concerns over the lack of funding needed in about a third of the 58 counties to carry out Proposition 36, specifically that there are not enough inpatient treatment beds.

A recent report from a nonpartisan research institute found that there was a statewide shortage of treatment beds for those with substance use disorder and that some facilities exclude those with prior involvement in the criminal justice system.

Greg Totten, who heads the California District Attorneys Assn. and was one of the main architects of Proposition 36, said the funding concerns are overblown. He said there are “significant funds” in behavioral health services that are available from Proposition 1, which is a $6.4-billion mental health bond measure voters passed earlier this year. He also said outpatient treatment could be an option if beds in inpatient facilities are full.

Some observers noted that progressive prosecutors elsewhere have had many successes, and said that while there are lessons to be learned from November’s results, ups and downs are also inevitable for long-term political movements.

Advertisement

Anne Irwin — the executive director of Smart Justice, an organization that educates policymakers on criminal justice reform — considers this election only “one step back.”

Irwin pointed to a study from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll from October that found a majority of voters who supported Proposition 36 also said they want to prioritize understanding the root causes of crime.

She also noted that many successful candidates this year ran their campaigns around the economy — a topic that intersected with Proposition 36. Retail chains including Walmart and Target were major donors, whose support largely came from a profit-loss standpoint.

Hochman successfully courted the support of business leaders, including L.A. mall magnate Rick Caruso and small-bakery owners, highlighting the economic effects of property crime. His “hard middle” approach, which focused on prioritizing public safety and working with police to crack down on violent criminals without completely eschewing reform-minded policies, also worked well, Irwin said.

“The newly evolved Nathan Hochman touted support for criminal justice reform,” she said. “We shall see if that pans out in the policies and practices he implements in the district attorney’s office.”

Advertisement

Hochman’s campaign aside, Totten and other proponents of Proposition 36 said that voters simply rejected “bad policy” that hurt public safety.

Voters “didn’t feel safe,” Totten said. “They wanted change. I think the problem was Californians see products locked up, they see thieves coming into stores and stealing.”

The dramatic shift in California voter behavior on criminal justice is borne out by data. A decade ago, 59% of Californians voted yes on Proposition 47, California’s landmark resentencing measure. This year, 68% of voters supported Proposition 36, which in effect repealed the 2014 measure.

Higher turnout also led to a huge increase in raw voter support this year. More than 10 million Californians cast a ballot to pass Proposition 36, as opposed to just 3.7 million who voted in support of the 2014 measure, according to secretary of state records.

The voters may have spoken, but DeBerry said progressive prosecutors’ “values do not change” because of election results. She challenged Californians to keep an eye on crime data in the coming years and hold policies and politicians to account if their methods don’t have an impact.

Advertisement

“After this election cycle, they own it all,” she said. “So if we don’t see drug use subside and we see prison populations exploding and we see crime continue to exist, I hope that voters and the media and everybody will say, ‘You promised this as the solution, and it’s not better.’”

Politics

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

Published

on

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.

Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to “civilian life.”

“It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,” he wrote.

The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.

Advertisement

BONDI, PATEL TAP MISSOURI AG AS ADDITIONAL FBI CO-DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALONGSIDE BONGINO

Dan Bongino speaks with FBI Director Kash Patel as they attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City on Sept. 11, 2025. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.

“Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,” Trump told reporters.

FBI DIRECTOR, TOP DOJ OFFICIAL RESPOND TO ‘FAILING’ NY TIMES ARTICLE CLAIMING ‘DISDAIN’ FOR EACH OTHER

Advertisement

“After his swearing-in ceremony as FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino paid his respects at the Wall of Honor, honoring the brave members of the #FBI who made the ultimate sacrifice and reflecting on the legacy of those who paved the way in the pursuit of justice and security,” the FBI said in a post on X. (@FBI on X)

Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on “Fox & Friends,” saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.

“I gave up everything for this,” he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.

“I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,” he added.

The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover headquarters building in Washington on Nov. 2, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real

Published

on

Commentary: Unhappy with the choices for California governor? Get real

California has tried all manner of design in choosing its governor.

Democrat Gray Davis, to name a recent example, had an extensive background in government and politics and a bland demeanor that suggested his first name was also a fitting adjective.

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, was a novice candidate who ran for governor on a whim. His super-sized action hero persona dazzled Californians like the pyrotechnics in one of his Hollywood blockbusters.

In the end, however, their political fates were the same. Both left office humbled, burdened with lousy poll numbers and facing a well of deep voter discontent.

Advertisement

(Schwarzenegger, at least, departed on his own terms. He chased Davis from the Capitol in an extraordinary recall and won reelection before his approval ratings tanked during his second term.)

There are roughly a dozen major candidates for California governor in 2026 and, taken together, they lack even a small fraction of Schwarzenegger’s celebrity wattage.

Nor do any have the extensive Sacramento experience of Davis, who was a gubernatorial chief of staff under Jerry Brown before serving in the Legislature, then winning election as state controller and lieutenant governor.

That’s not, however, to disparage those running.

The contestants include a former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa; three candidates who’ve won statewide office, former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee; two others who gained national recognition during their time in Congress, Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell; and Riverside County’s elected sheriff, Chad Bianco.

Advertisement

The large field offers an ample buffet from which to choose.

The rap on this particular batch of hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, which, honestly, seems a greater concern to those writing and spitballing about the race than a reflection of some great upwelling of citizens clamoring for bread and circuses.

In scores of conversations with voters over the past year, the sentiment that came through, above all, was a sense of practicality and pragmatism. (And, this being a blue bastion, no small amount of horror, fear and loathing directed at the vengeful and belligerent Trump administration.)

It’s never been more challenging and expensive to live in California, a place of great bounty that often exacts in dollars and stress what it offers in opportunity and wondrous beauty.

With a governor seemingly more focused on his personal agenda, a 2028 bid for president, than the people who put him in office, many said they’d like to replace Gavin Newsom with someone who will prioritize California and their needs above his own.

Advertisement

That means a focus on matters such as traffic, crime, fire prevention, housing and homelessness. In other words, pedestrian stuff that doesn’t light up social media or earn an invitation to hold forth on one of the Beltway chat shows.

“Why does it take so long to do simple things?” asked one of those voters, the Bay Area’s Michael Duncan, as he lamented his pothole-ridden, 120-mile round-trip commute between Fairfield and an environmental analyst job in Livermore.

The answer is not a simple one.

Politics are messy, like any human endeavor. Governing is a long and laborious process, requiring study, deliberation and the weighing of competing forces. Frankly, it can be rather dull.

Certainly the humdrum of legislation or bureaucratic rule-marking is nothing like the gossipy speculation about who may or may not bid to lead California as its 41st governor.

Advertisement

Why else was so much coverage devoted to whether Sen. Alex Padilla would jump into the gubernatorial race — he chose not to — and the possible impact his entry would have on the contest, as opposed to, say, his thinking on CEQA or FMAP?

(The former is California’s much-contested Environmental Quality Act; the latter is the formula that determines federal reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the state’s healthcare program for low-income residents.)

Just between us, political reporters tend to be like children in front of a toy shop window. Their bedroom may be cluttered with all manner of diversion and playthings, but what they really want is that shiny, as-yet unattained object — Rick Caruso! — beckoning from behind glass.

Soon enough, once a candidate has entered the race, boredom sets in and the speculation and desire for someone fresh and different starts anew. (Will Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta change his mind and run for governor?)

For their part, many voters always seem to be searching for some idealized candidate who exists only in their imagination.

Advertisement

Someone strong, but not dug in. Willing to compromise, but never caving to the other side. Someone with the virginal purity of a political outsider and the intrinsic capability of an insider who’s spent decades cutting deals and keeping the government wheels spinning.

They look over their choices and ask, in the words of an old song, is that all there is? (Spoiler alert: There are no white knights out there.)

Donald Trump was, foremost, a celebrity before his burst into politics. First as a denizen of New York’s tabloid culture and then as the star of TV’s faux-boardroom drama, “The Apprentice.”

His pizzazz was a large measure of his appeal, along with his manufactured image as a shrewd businessman with a kingly touch and infallible judgment.

His freewheeling political rallies and frothy social media presence were, and continue to be, a source of great glee to his fans and followers.

Advertisement

His performance as president has been altogether different, and far less amusing.

If the candidates for California governor fail to light up a room, that’s not such a bad thing. Fix the roads. Make housing more affordable. Help keep the place from burning to the ground.

Leave the fun and games to the professionals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Kamala Harris blasts Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s Maduro as ‘unlawful and unwise’

Published

on

Kamala Harris blasts Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s Maduro as ‘unlawful and unwise’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday evening condemned the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, calling the operation both “unlawful” and “unwise.”

In a lengthy post on X, Harris acknowledged that Maduro is a “brutal” and “illegitimate” dictator but said that President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.”

“Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable,” Harris wrote. “That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise. We’ve seen this movie before.

“Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.”

Advertisement

SEE PICS: VENEZUELANS WORLDWIDE CELEBRATE AS EXILES REACT TO MADURO’S CAPTURE

Vice President Kamala Harris had strong words for the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. (Montinique Monroe/Getty Images)

Harris made the remarks hours after the Trump administration confirmed that Maduro and his wife were captured and transported out of Venezuela as part of “Operation Absolute Resolve.”

The former vice president also accused the administration of being motivated by oil interests rather than efforts to combat drug trafficking or promote democracy.

“The American people do not want this, and they are tired of being lied to. This is not about drugs or democracy. It is about oil and Donald Trump’s desire to play the regional strongman,” Harris said. “If he cared about either, he wouldn’t pardon a convicted drug trafficker or sideline Venezuela’s legitimate opposition while pursuing deals with Maduro’s cronies.”

Advertisement

SECOND FRONT: HOW A SOCIALIST CELL IN THE US MOBILIZED PRO-MADURO FOOT SOLDIERS WITHIN 12 HOURS

President Donald Trump shared a photo of captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima after Saturday’s strikes on Venezuela. (Donald Trump via Truth Social)

Harris, who has been rumored as a potential Democratic contender in the 2028 presidential race, additionally accused the president of endangering U.S. troops and destabilizing the region.

“The President is putting troops at risk, spending billions, destabilizing a region, and offering no legal authority, no exit plan, and no benefit at home,” she said. “America needs leadership whose priorities are lowering costs for working families, enforcing the rule of law, strengthening alliances, and — most importantly — putting the American people first.”

MADURO’S FALL SPARKS SUSPICION OF BETRAYAL INSIDE VENEZUELA’S RULING ELITE

Advertisement

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, left, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio watch U.S. military operations in Venezuela from Mar-a-Lago in Florida early Saturday. (Donald Trump via Truth Social)

Maduro and his wife arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn late Saturday after being transported by helicopter from the DEA in Manhattan after being processed.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier in the day, Trump said that the U.S. government will “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

Harris’ office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending