Tough on Crime Initiative Divides South Bay Democratic Candidates

A

tough-on-crime ballot measure has emerged as a potentially potent wedge issue in the three South Bay races that each pit two Democrats against each other in the November election.

In a closely-watched race for Congress and two campaigns for state Assembly in Santa Clara County, candidates have come under attack for opposing Proposition 36 — even in one election where neither candidate plans to vote for the measure.

Proposition 36 would make it easier for prosecutors to charge a felony for some drug possession and theft crimes in California by rolling back some of the reforms passed by voters in a 2014 ballot measure, Proposition 47. Poll after poll has shown Proposition 36 receiving wide backing from voters, even in the liberal Bay Area — putting Democrats who oppose the measure or have concerns about its language in an awkward position while creating an opening for campaigns and outside groups to draw a clear contrast between candidates from the same political party.

The South Bay divide is hardly unique this election cycle: Well-known Democrats are on both sides of the Proposition 36 campaign, with state leaders largely opposing the measure, many local officials throwing their support behind it — and other Democrats refusing to take a position.

Supporters, including the Democratic mayor of the region’s largest city, San José’s Matt Mahan, contend that tougher sentences are needed to discourage rising shoplifting and serve as a stick to compel drug users to accept treatment. Opponents, chiefly the state’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue there is no connection between previous reforms and theft and that longer sentences will invariably lead to expensive incarceration, not treatment.

“It’s an indication of when politics is local and not really about partisanship, but it’s about people’s feelings and perceptions,” said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. “It might not actually have to do with the numbers of crimes, but it’s their fears of vulnerability and their interest in trying to do something about those fears.”

A poll released by the PPIC last week found that 73% of likely voters plan to vote yes on Proposition 36 — with an equal share of Bay Area voters in support. A late September survey from the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies was less bullish but still found a comfortable 60% of likely voters in support. Faced with that signal from the electorate, many high-profile California Democrats, from Sen. Laphonza Butler to Vice President Kamala Harris, have refused to make their position on the measure public.

“This is one of the reasons that candidates at all levels are not necessarily eager to go out and take a stand on this because it could be a wedge issue,” Baldassare said. “And the candidates and campaigns are not quite sure how voters are going to respond.”

In the South Bay’s marquee race for Congress, in the 16th District, Democrats Sam Liccardo and Evan Low had said little about Proposition 36 — until they found themselves on opposite sides of the measure in a debate earlier this month.

Liccardo, the former mayor of San José, called the measure “an imperfect proposition” but said it would restore participation in drug courts, programs that offer a chance at reduced punishment if participants complete treatment. With new felony sentences, Liccardo said, judges can present a clear choice for defendants between treatment and time behind bars.

“Right now that choice is never presented, as a result our drug courts are completely empty,” Liccardo said. “This is the one mechanism we have to actually break the connection between substance abuse and crime.”

Low countered by declaring his opposition: “I refuse to go back to the era of mass incarceration,” he said.

Touting his work as a state assemblymember, Low said his votes for bills this year aim to combat retail theft in a different way: by making it easier for police to arrest suspects and aggregate charges rather than by increasing sentences.

“The fundamental role of government is keeping our communities safe, but we must do so in a surgical way,” said Low.

Within days, an independent group supporting Liccardo, largely funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, jumped at the divide.

The group Neighbors for Results sent a mailer across the district contrasting the candidates’ positions on Proposition 36 and accusing Low of opposing “the common-sense plan to address retail thefts and save consumers billions.”

A similar mailer has landed in mailboxes from Cupertino to Sunnyvale, where two Democrats are running for the 26th Assembly District seat currently held by Low.

Patrick Ahrens, a Foothill-DeAnza Community College District trustee and Low’s district director, is running against fellow Democrat Tara Sreekrishnan, a Santa Clara County Board of Education member and legislative advisor to state Sen. Dave Cortese.

“Who Can You Trust to Keep Us Safe?” asked the mailer from a pro-Ahrens super-PAC funded by real estate and landlord lobbies, which added: “Tara opposes Prop 36 to hold criminals accountable and toughen penalties for retail theft and drug crimes.”

What the mailer failed to mention: Ahrens does not support Proposition 36 either.

He said he remains neutral on the initiative and won’t vote either yes or no. At a recent forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Ahrens and Sreekrishnan sounded similar concerns about legislating crime and punishment at the ballot.

“I think we need to focus on enforcing [existing] laws rather than another ballot measure,” Sreekrishnan said, while Ahrens added (without revealing he would leave the question blank on his ballot): “We cannot be continuing to govern by tying the hands of the legislature continually.”

Both the mailers attacking Low and Sreekrishnan were funded by outside groups, operating independently from the Liccardo and Ahrens campaigns. Political strategist Marva Diaz said these groups are searching for any compelling contrast, even if their interests aren’t directly tied to public safety, because it’s harder for voters to differentiate among two candidates from the same party.

“In some of the Dem vs. Dem races, what’s really happening is it becomes the issue to define who is the progressive member and who is the more moderate member,” said Diaz, who serves as the publisher of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan election analysis service.

In a third South Bay race, the fight over Proposition 36 is playing out in the open. Democrat Lydia Kou, a Palo Alto city councilmember, has made no secret of her support for the measure as she campaigns to unseat Democratic Assemblymember Marc Berman in the 23rd District.

Kou writes on her website that Proposition 36 is a “good example” of when “State officials too often drift apart from their communities and focus on big donors, special interests and ideological pressure groups.”

“Prop 36 also divides our Assembly District 23: I myself support Prop 36 and recommend a “Yes” vote, and if elected I’ll support related measures where sensible; My opponent, Marc Berman, has been a leading opponent of Prop 36,” Kou wrote.

Unlike many Democrats, Berman has not been shy with his opposition to the measure.

“One thing to emphasize about [Proposition] 36 is the millions of dollars that it will cost the state, that it will cost our counties if it passes, and how it will take money away from diversion programs,” Berman told KQED. “Instead, it will lock people up for stealing remarkably low-cost items. That third theft, even if it’s a burrito, even if it’s diapers for your kids, could all of a sudden be a felony.”

Diaz said there is still some risk for campaigns looking to capitalize on the strong polling in favor of Proposition 36. Support for propositions typically narrows closer to the election, and if the measure’s margins slip in the Bay Area, the pro-36 messaging could rub some voters the wrong way, she said.

“You don’t know who you are losing, especially with a mailer — it could be going to a household that is split on that issue, and you don’t know how to segment that out,” Diaz said. “It raises a lot of flags, and it becomes risky.”

One thing seems certain: Proposition 36 is catching the attention of voters. 28% of likely voters told the PPIC they were more interested in Proposition 36 than any other state measure on the ballot, comfortably ahead of the 17% who said they were most interested in Proposition 33, which would allow the expansion of rent control.