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

San Diego sues to stop border barrier construction

Published

on

San Diego sues to stop border barrier construction

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The city of San Diego sued the federal government to stop the construction of razor wire fencing on city-owned land near the U.S.-Mexico border, accusing federal agencies of trespassing and causing environmental damage.

The city filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for Southern California on Monday. The complaint named Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth among the defendants.

The city accused the federal government of acting without legal authority when they entered city property in Marron Valley and began installing razor wire fencing.

“The City of San Diego will not allow federal agencies to disregard the law and damage City property,” said City Attorney Heather Ferbert in a news release. She said the lawsuit aims to protect sensitive habitats and ensure environmental commitments are upheld.

Advertisement

NEWSOM SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT ORDER TO OREGON

San Diego is suing the federal government to stop the construction of razor wire fencing on city property in Marron Valley. (Justin Hamel/Bloomberg via Getty Images, File)

According to the lawsuit, federal personnel including U.S. Marines accessed the land without the city’s consent, and damaged environmentally sensitive areas protected under long-standing conservation agreements.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth were among the federal officials named in San Diego’s lawsuit. (Reuters/Brian Snyder; AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

San Diego argues the fencing has blocked the city’s ability to manage and assess its own property and could jeopardize compliance with environmental obligations.

Advertisement

An American flag can be seen through the barbed wire surrounding the CoreCivic Otay Mesa Detention Center on October 4, 2025 in San Diego, California. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The lawsuit also accuses the federal government of trespassing and beginning construction without proper authority or environmental review, and unconstitutionally taking the land in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS and the Pentagon for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Tim Walz isn’t the only governor plagued by fraud. Newsom may be targeted next

Published

on

Commentary: Tim Walz isn’t the only governor plagued by fraud. Newsom may be targeted next

Former vice presidential contender and current aw-shucks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced this week that he won’t run for a third term, dogged by a scandal over child care funds that may or may not be going to fraudsters.

It’s a politically driven mess that not coincidentally focuses on a Black immigrant community, tying the real problem of scammers stealing government funds to the growing MAGA frenzy around an imaginary version of America that thrives on whiteness and Christianity.

Despite the ugliness of current racial politics in America, the fraud remains real, and not just in Minnesota. California has lost billions to cheats in the last few years, leaving our own governor, who also harbors D.C. dreams, vulnerable to the same sort of attack that has taken down Walz.

As we edge closer to the 2028 presidential election, Republicans and Democrats alike will probably come at Gavin Newsom with critiques of the state’s handling of COVID-19 funds, unemployment insurance and community college financial aid to name a few of the honeypots that have been successfully swiped by thieves during his tenure.

In fact, President Trump said as much on his social media barf-fest this week.

Advertisement

“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun,” he wrote.

Right-wing commentator Benny Johnson also said he’s conducting his own “investigation.” And Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is claiming his fraud tip line has turned up “(c)orruption, fraud and abuse on an epic scale.”

Just to bring home that this vulnerability is serious and bipartisan, Rep. Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley congressman rumored to have his own interest in the Oval Office, is also circling the fraud feast like a vulture eyeing his next meal.

“I want to hear from residents in my district and across the state about waste, mismanagement, inefficiencies, or fraud that we must tackle,” Khanna wrote on social media.

Newsom’s spokesman Izzy Gardon questioned the validity of many fraud claims.

Advertisement

“In the actual world where adults govern,” Gardon said, “Gavin Newsom has been cleaning house. Since taking office, he’s blocked over $125 BILLION in fraud, arrested criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers, and protected taxpayers from the exact kind of scam artists Trump celebrates, excuses, and pardons.”

What exactly are we talking about here? Well, it’s a pick-your-scandal type of thing. Even before the federal government dumped billions in aid into the states during the pandemic, California’s unemployment system was plagued by inefficiencies and yes, scammers. But when the world shut down and folks needed that government cash to survive, malfeasance skyrocketed.

Every thief with a half-baked plan — including CEOs, prisoners behind bars and overseas organized crime rackets — came for California’s cash, and seemingly got it. The sad part is these weren’t criminal geniuses. More often than not, they were low-level swindlers looking at a system full of holes because it was trying to do too much too fast.

In a matter of months, billions had been siphoned away. A state audit in 2021 found that at least $10 billion had been paid out on suspicious unemployment claims — never mind small business loans or other types of aid. An investigation by CalMatters in 2023 suggested the final figure may be up to triple that amount for unemployment. In truth, no one knows exactly how much was stolen — in California, or across the country.

It hasn’t entirely stopped. California is still paying out fraudulent unemployment claims at too high a rate, totaling up to $1.5 billion over the last few years — more than $500 million in 2024 alone, according to the state auditor.

Advertisement

But that’s not all. Enterprising thieves looked elsewhere when COVID-19 money largely dried up. Recently, that has been our community colleges, where millions in federal student aid has been lost to grifters who use bots to sign up for classes, receive government money to help with school, then disappear. Another CalMatters investigation using data obtained from a public records request found that up to 34% of community college applications in 2024 may have been false — though that number represents fraudulent admissions that were flagged and blocked, Gardon points out.

Still, community college fraud will probably be a bigger issue for Newsom because it’s fresher, and can be tied (albeit disingenuously) to immigrants and progressive policies.

California allows undocumented residents to enroll in community colleges, and it made those classes free — two terrific policies that have been exploited by the unscrupulous. For a while, community colleges didn’t do enough to ensure that students were real people, because they didn’t require enough proof of identity. This was in part to accommodate vulnerable students such as foster kids, homeless people and undocumented folks who lacked papers.

With no up-front costs for attempting to enroll, phonies threw thousands of identities at the system’s 116 schools, which were technologically unprepared for the assaults. These “ghost” students were often accepted and given grants and loans.

My former colleague Kaitlyn Huamani reported that in 2024, scammers stole roughly $8.4 million in federal financial aid and more than $2.7 million in state aid from our community colleges. That‘s a pittance compared with the tens of billions that was handed out in state and federal financial aid, but more than enough for a political fiasco.

Advertisement

As Walz would probably explain if nuanced policy conversations were still a thing, it’s both a fair and unfair criticism to blame these robberies on a governor alone — state government should be careful of its cash and aggressive in protecting it, and the buck stops with the governor, but crises and technology have collided to create opportunities for swindlers that frankly few governmental leaders, from the feds on down, have handled with any skill or luck.

The crooks have simply been smarter and faster than the rest of us to capitalize first on the pandemic, then on evolving technology including AI that makes scamming easier and scalable to levels our institutions were unprepared to handle.

Since being so roundly fleeced during the pandemic, multiple state and federal agencies have taken steps in combating fraud — including community colleges using their own AI tools to stop fake students before they get in.

And the state is holding thieves accountable. Newsom hired a former Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, McGregor Scott, to go after scam artists on unemployment. And other county, state and federal prosecutors have also dedicated resources to clawing back some of the lost money.

With the slow pace of our courts (burdened by their own aging technology), many of those cases are still ongoing or just winding up. For example, 24 L.A. County employees were charged in recent months with allegedly stealing more than $740,000 in unemployment benefits, which really is chump change in this whole mess.

Advertisement

Another California man recently pleaded guilty to allegedly cheating his way into $15.9 million in federal loans through the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan programs.

And in one of the most colorful schemes, four Californians with nicknames including “Red boy” and “Scooby” allegedly ran a scam that boosted nearly $250 million in federal tax refunds before three of them attempted to murder the fourth to keep him from ratting them out to the feds.

There are literally hundreds of cases across the country of pandemic fraud. And these schemes are just the tip of the cash-berg. Fraudsters are also targeting fire relief funds, food benefits — really, any pot of public money is fair game to them. And the truth is, the majority of that stolen money is gone for good.

So it’s hard to hear the numbers and not be shocked and angry, especially as the Golden State is faced with a budget shortfall that may be as much as $18 billion.

Whether you blame Newsom personally or not for all this fraud, it’s hard to be forgiving of so much public money being handed to scoundrels when our schools are in need, our healthcare in jeopardy and our bills on an upward trajectory.

Advertisement

The failure is going to stick to somebody, and it doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to figure out who it’s going to be.

Continue Reading

Politics

Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution

Published

on

Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution, including the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.

The court, in a 4-1 ruling, sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others who had sued over the abortion bans passed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which returned the power to make laws on abortion back to the states.

Despite Wyoming being one of the most conservative states, the ruling handed down by justices who were all appointed by Republican governors upheld every previous lower court ruling that the abortion bans violated the state constitution.

Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the abortion access advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund and four women, including two obstetricians, argued that the laws violated a state constitutional amendment affirming that competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions.

Advertisement

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2012 in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.

The justices in Wyoming found that the amendment was not written to apply to abortion but noted that it is not their job to “add words” to the state constitution.

“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote.

Advertisement

Wellspring Health Access President Julie Burkhart said in a statement that the ruling upholds abortion as “essential health care” that should not be met with government interference.

“Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions, and our patients in Wyoming will be able to obtain this care without having to travel out of state,” Burkhart said.

Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction and delayed its opening. A woman is serving a five-year prison sentence after she admitted to breaking in and lighting gasoline that she poured over the clinic floors.

Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction. (AP)

Attorneys representing the state had argued that abortion cannot violate the Wyoming constitution because it is not a form of health care.

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling and called on state lawmakers meeting later this winter to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion that residents could vote on this fall.

An amendment like that would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced as a nonbudget matter in the monthlong legislative session that will primarily address the state budget, although it would have significant support in the Republican-dominated legislature.

“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said in a statement.

APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP ON BUDGET PROVISION CUTTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDS

Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling. (Getty Images)

Advertisement

One of the laws overturned by the state’s high court attempted to ban abortion, but with exceptions in cases where it is needed to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest. The other law would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, although other states have implemented de facto bans on abortion medication by broadly restricting abortion.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Abortion has remained legal in the state since Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens blocked the bans while the lawsuit challenging the restrictions moved forward. Owens struck down the laws as unconstitutional in 2024.

Last year, Wyoming passed additional laws requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers and women to receive ultrasounds before having medication abortions. A judge in a separate lawsuit blocked those laws from taking effect while that case moves forward.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending