Will California Assembly retail theft plan satisfy civil rights groups, Prop. 47 opponents?

Reality Check is a Sacramento Bee series holding officials and organizations accountable and shining a light on their decisions. Have a tip? Email realitycheck@sacbee.com.

California Assembly Democrats are trying to walk a narrow line with their legislative efforts to address retail theft.

They want to avoid going back to more punitive sentencing laws of the 1980s and 1990s. But they are also feeling political pressure from law enforcement and retail groups to address theft.

So far, their solutions don’t fully ease the concerns of either side. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, on Tuesday announced a bipartisan package of bills making it easier for law enforcement and prosecutors to go after retail thieves.

But proponents of an initiative asking voters to make changes to Proposition 47 — which decreased penalties for some crimes involving drugs or theft — are still pushing to get it on the November ballot. And some criminal justice reform advocates are opposing measures from the package, saying they would incarcerate more people without stopping theft.

Here’s how the situation is playing out in the Capitol.

Assembly retail theft bills

The seven bills Rivas and lawmakers presented on Tuesday at a press conference, and later in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, were the result of the speaker’s Assembly Select Committee on Retail Theft. Rivas created the group in fall 2023, and he announced the general outlines of legislation in February.

The legislation would include a bill from the speaker and Assemblyman Rick Chavez-Zbur, D-West Hollywood, that would state that prosecutors could aggregate the value of stolen items to reach the threshold for felony theft and create a new crime of possessing stolen property with intent to sell, among other provisions.

Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria, D-Fresno, authored a bill renewing an expired policy allowing courts to hand down longer sentences for people who destroy property while committing felonies.

A bill from Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, would allow courts to restrain people from visiting certain retailers if they have two or more in-store theft, vandalism or battery citations.

Ballot measure organizers not satisfied

The Assembly bills have support from the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Retailers Association. However, they do not seem to have satisfied Californians for Safer Communities, which is backing the ballot measure to make changes to Proposition 47 to address retail theft and drug use.

The group has until April 23 to collect the more than 546,000 signatures it needs to get the initiative on the November ballot. Organizers have raised millions of dollars in support of the measure, with major retailers spending big on the campaign. Wal-Mart alone has donated $2.5 million.

Some Assembly measures seem to tackle issues mentioned in the ballot measure. Soria’s bill on sentencing enhancements and Rivas and Zbur’s bill allowing theft aggregations would take actions similar to those the initiative describes.

While spokeswoman Becky Warren called the measures a “step in the right direction,” she said “much more needs to be done to effectively hold individuals accountable and improve the safety of all Californians.”

“Because of the way Proposition 47 was written, we believe that voter approval is required for any new enforcement or accountability enhancements,” Warren said in a statement.

It remains to be seen whether Gov. Gavin Newsom, Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg will negotiate a deal with ballot measure proponents that prompts them to drop the initiative.

McGuire and Newsom have been clear that they do not want to take retail theft to the ballot or make changes to Proposition 47. Rivas on Tuesday echoed this sentiment.

“I believe legislation that would require going to the ballot to address retail crime or theft is not necessary,” Rivas said in a statement. “The Assembly’s bipartisan and comprehensive plan delivers real and urgent changes for Californians.”

Criminal justice reform opposition

At least one criminal justice reform organization cheered the Assembly retail theft bills, but others opposed some of the measures during the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing.

Tinisch Hollins of Californians for Safety and Justice said Rivas and Zbur “deserve credit” for their approach to legislation.

“Rather than simply seeking to score quick and cheap political points, the package reflects a commitment to pursuing solutions that would reduce the incidents of theft in the first place, while also underscoring the critical need for law enforcement to effectively solve crime when it occurs,” Hollins said in a statement.

However, other criminal justice reform groups, such as the Vera Institute of Justice and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, did not support some of the bills. They disliked Soria’s bill, in particular, as it would bring back sentencing enhancements that expired in 2018. The measure does not contain language saying an accused person intended to destroy property, meaning it could be broadly applied, they said.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018 vetoed a similar bill, saying he did not see a reason to “re-enact a repealed sentencing enhancement without corresponding evidence that it was effective in deterring crime.”

Vera also opposes Rivas and Zbur’s bill, saying in the bill analysis that “increasing penalties and arrests for non-violent offenses like possessing stolen goods and retail theft will do little to make our communities safer.”

Isabella Borgeson of the Ella Baker Center said the group wants to “support bills that are really about solutions that aren’t just responding to crime after it’s happened, but are solutions to preventing crime in the first place and addressing some of the root causes of that.”