By admin 
California lawmakers have approved legislation by Assemblymember Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, to permanently bar people convicted of certain felony sex crimes and human trafficking from running for state or local elected office. The measure now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Read more Lora Anguay sees a cleaner, more sustainable energy future in Sacramento
The Assembly voted unanimously to approve the Senate’s changes to AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, giving the measure final legislative approval. The vote came without debate on the Assembly floor, despite previous controversy over the changes as the bill moved through the Senate.
AB 2691, authored by Addis, would expand an existing state law that prohibits people convicted of certain crimes involving a breach of public trust — including bribery, perjury, extortion and embezzlement or theft of public money — from being candidates for public office.
This bill would add certain felony sexual assault and human trafficking convictions to that list.
Addis’ office calls AB 2691 the first California legislation seeking to bar sexual assault perpetrators from running for office and says the measure would provide the strongest protection of its kind in the country.
But exactly which sex crimes should result in a lifetime ban from elected office became a point of contention as the bill moved through the Senate.
Bill narrowed after leaving Assembly
The version of AB 2691 that initially cleared the Assembly specified which sex crimes could disqualify someone from running for office. It listed several sections of California law covering offenses including rape, nonconsensual sodomy or oral copulation, lewd acts with children, and sexual penetration. The Assembly passed that version unanimously in April.
The Senate narrowed the bill in June, carving out certain offenses involving sodomy, oral copulation and sexual penetration with minors. But lawmakers offered little explanation during a June 30 hearing for why those particular offenses were excluded.
Sen. Steven Choi, R-Irvine, directly asked Addis why someone who engaged in sexual acts with minors should remain eligible to run for office. Addis did not address the specific exclusions, instead saying the bill focused on certain harms and that she was willing to continue working with lawmakers if they believed other crimes should be included.
“Adult victim, you’re disqualified. Child victim, you may run for school board,” said Greg Burt of the California Family Council at the hearing. “No one has offered a rationale.”
Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who chairs the committee, defended the bill. He said the amendments had not removed any felonies and characterized some of the excluded offenses as misdemeanors. If lawmakers wanted additional crimes included, he said, they could introduce their own legislation.
Read more California legislators say Meta settlement won’t stop social media regulation
The bill was rewritten again in August. Lawmakers removed the specific exclusions but did not restore the original version. Instead, they limited the ban to sex crimes that require lifetime registration as a sex offender. No public explanation was given at the time for the change.
Senate debate over the changes
The disagreement came to a head Tuesday when state Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, R-Acton, made a final attempt to broaden the bill. The Senate voted 28-10 to set her amendments aside.
Debate continued on the bill itself. Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, R-Yucaipa, said she supported the goal of AB 2691 but believed lawmakers had drawn the line too narrowly by limiting the ban to crimes requiring lifetime sex-offender registration.
“A conviction for a serious sex offense does not become less serious simply because the law does not require registration for life or falls into a different tier,” Ochoa Bogh said.
Wiener defended the narrower bill and argued opponents were faulting it for not going far enough rather than focusing on what the bill would do.
Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, also objected to the changes but said the bill was still worth supporting.
“Just because we’re against that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to support at least the incremental part of this,” Seyarto said. “And then we should go back to the drawing board next year and get the rest of it addressed as well.”
Still, Seyarto left the decision to his colleagues: “Vote what you want to vote. It’s your conscience.”
The Senate passed the bill 34-2, with Choi and Sen. Brian Jones, R-Santee, casting the only votes against it. The Assembly then voted unanimously to accept the Senate’s changes without debate, sending the bill to Newsom.
Read more Nick Shirley and GOP exploit fear to attack California’s immigrant advocates | Opinion