Harris too chicken to back repeal of California’s pro-criminal Prop 47

Life rarely offers second chances. But California is offering one to Kamala Harris in the form of this year’s Proposition 36.

A decade ago, California first considered Proposition 47, which stood down law enforcement by reclassifying crimes and relaxing sentences. Harris was California’s attorney general. She was MIA — taking no position on something directly in her wheelhouse.  

Now, 10 years later, as California is reconsidering the failed Proposition 47 on this November’s ballot, Harris has the belated chance to make amends by recommending a “yes” vote on Prop 36. 

In 2014, California considered Proposition 47, state-of-the-left legislation to reduce law enforcement. Specified drug and theft crimes were changed from felonies to misdemeanors, with some of those previously convicted of these offenses eligible to have their sentences reduced.    

Since these were no longer felonies, DNA samples were no longer automatically collected for offenders. This meant that police could no longer check these criminals’ DNA against DNA evidence obtained from other serious crimes.

In 2014, Kamala Harris was also California’s attorney general. Although her office wrote Proposition 47’s summary and title, Harris herself took no position on the initiative.  

Considering its subject (law enforcement), its ramifications (reclassifying felonies, including retroactively, and limiting DNA testing), her current position, and her background (she had been San Francisco’s DA), Harris’s recusal was curious, to say the least. 

Proposition 47 went on to pass overwhelmingly. And ever since, California has been overwhelmed by the consequences. 

Drug use not only surged but spilled into the streets. Homelessness spiked. What had been felony theft (including shoplifting, grand theft, forgery, and fraud) was now simply a misdemeanor (so long as it stayed below $950), and newly reclassified “shoplifting” skyrocketed.

And without DNA testing for now-reduced drug and theft offenses, many other serious crimes went unsolved.

After a decade of decadence, even lefty California has now had enough. Despite repeated efforts by liberal Democrats to undercut it, November’s ballot will feature Proposition 36, which would roll back parts of 2014’s failed Proposition 47. The rollback appears likely, as recent polling shows landslide support for Prop 36. Seventy percent favor it overall, including 63 percent of Democrats.

Proposition 36 also has 70 mayors (mostly Democrats) backing it, and bucking Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and other liberal defenders of failure, who defend Proposition 47 as a critical part of their political legacy.

This winding chain of events leads us back again to Harris. A lot has changed for her since she was state attorney general just a decade ago. Not the least of these changes has been her recent reversals of past positions, such as her earlier support to ban fracking and decriminalize illegal immigration.

Harris, now running for president, is also trying to accentuate her prosecutorial background. She talks a great game about getting tough on crime and strengthening security on the southern border. So this would be the perfect time for her to rectify her past dereliction of duty on Proposition 47.

Of course, Harris avoided taking a position a decade ago because she is extremely risk-averse.  Even with her responsibility as attorney general, she gave California voters no guidance. Her background — as well as simple common sense — should have made obvious to Harris what would occur.

Lower penalties would lead to more drug usage, and more drug victims winding up homeless on California streets. Lower penalties for theft would mean more theft and decreased public safety. Abandonment of DNA testing for reclassified crimes would mean fewer crimes solved.  

Maybe Harris herself was so far to the left that she didn’t care about Proposition 47’s consequences. Maybe she knew but was intimidated by the initiative’s popularity then and feared alienating the left-wing political movement supporting it. 

Either way, Harris remained silent then and has remained so ever since. 

But things have changed in California. Proposition 36 is on November’s ballot after ten years of negative reinforcement statewide, and heavily favored to win. 

Things have also changed for Harris. Now running for president, she wants to recast herself and reverse prior positions. And crime is one of the Biden-Harris administration’s big liabilities: according to Real Clear Politics’ average of national polling, Biden’s approval rating on crime is just 40.3 percent, versus 57.3 percent disapproval.

Yet still, Harris remains silent on Proposition 36. The longer she ducks taking a stand, the more obvious it is that she wants to retain the old Proposition 47, with its soft on crime standards and the resulting failures that have afflicted her former constituents in the formerly Golden State.  

Harris isn’t serious about fighting crime in California. So how can voters believe she will do so as president? Yes, Proposition 47 failed California, but Harris failed it first.

J.T. Young is the author of the upcoming book, “Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left.” He has over three decades’ of experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget, in addition to representing a Fortune 20 company.