CA crime and punishment: Clearing records, protecting victims

How should California treat criminals who have done their time?

It’s a thorny question for lawmakers, especially when many Californians are taking a harsher stance against crime.

In recent years, the Legislature has passed laws to make it easier for Californians to clear their criminal records and get a fresh start, writes CalMatters reporter Jeanne Kuang. 

Expungement started with misdemeanors and lower-level felonies. Under a law that went into effect in mid-2023, it expanded so that Californians with most kinds of felony convictions, including violent crimes, can apply. 

And starting in July, that law directs the state Department of Justice to automatically seal from public view non-serious, nonviolent and non-sexual felony convictions when the defendant has completed their sentence and not been convicted of another crime in four years. That will allow about 225,000 more Californians to qualify. 

If cleared, an individual’s case won’t be erased entirely. The state’s justice department will still have the records and can share them with other government agencies, police and prosecutors. An expungement doesn’t permit the person to own a gun, either. 

Jeanne talked to ex-offenders at a recent Sacramento expungement clinic, where they received guidance on how to apply and could get their fingerprints scanned.  

The law seeks to reduce the burdens ex-offenders must carry when applying for jobs or housing. When a San Mateo County judge granted an expungement for Alexis Pacheco’s records in December, the 39-year-old was overcome with relief. 

• Pacheco: “If people don’t know your story you’re just this person on paper. When I got the letter, I cried. It’s no longer, you’re just this person.”

To learn more about California’s expansion of clearing criminal records, read Jeanne’s story.

For many victims, however, clearing their own memory of crimes isn’t easy. 

So on Wednesday, Assemblymember Diane Dixon promoted her measure to allow survivors of sexual abuse to seek permanent restraining orders against their attackers. 

The Republican from Newport Beach spoke near the state Capitol about the measure, known as “Kayleigh’s Law,” alongside survivors of childhood sexual abuse (including Kayleigh Kozak, the proposal’s namesake) and a sergeant from the Orange County Sheriff’s special victims unit.

• Dixon: “Under current law, survivors must repeatedly face their abusers over and over in court proceedings to get basic protections. This creates unnecessary and repeated trauma for survivors.”

Calling the bill “critical” to protect individuals from “retaliation, continued violence, stalking and harassment,” Dixon estimates that there are “thousands” of potential victims who fear for their safety because they are not under court protection. Other states are considering similar bills and if passed, California would join Arizona and Wisconsin in enacting the law.

Proposition 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mental health measure, never really trailed. But it was too close to call ever since voting for California’s primary ended March 5 — until late Wednesday, when AP News (the most-used arbiter on elections) finally declared that it had passed.

Opponents, who were vastly outspent, also had some bad timing. They conceded too early, on March 12, even as the vote totals tightened. And they withdrew their concession too late, on Monday, as the final returns came in. As of late Wednesday, “yes” votes led by nearly 30,000 out of nearly 7.2 million ballots cast.   

• Newsom, on social media: “This is a huge victory for doing things radically different when it comes to tackling homelessness.”

So what happens next? 

Prop. 1 will provide the governor with funds to fulfill the pledges he has made in recent years about developing more housing and treatment beds for those who are unhoused and have serious mental illnesses, writes CalMatters health reporter Jocelyn Wiener.

The measure directs counties to invest 30% of the money they receive from the state’s “millionaire’s tax” into housing programs, with a focus on Californians who are chronically homeless or residing in encampments. The state will also borrow about $6.4 billion to develop inpatient and residential treatment beds, as well as permanent supportive housing for individuals, including veterans.

But Prop. 1 critics, such as disability rights advocates and those living with mental illness, are still worried that the measure will gut current mental health programs and make it easier for the state to force people into involuntary treatment.

Learn more about what Prop. 1 means for California in Jocelyn’s story.

Think of it as an agreement to agree.

On Wednesday, Gov. Newsom and the two top Democrats in the Legislature agreed that they would like to come to an agreement on early budget action. With a looming deficit estimated to be as much as $73 billion, Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas jointly announced that they would seek $12 billion to $18 billion in savings ahead of passing the full state budget in June. 

• Newsom, in a statement: “Despite the uncertainty due to the federal tax deadline delay last year, historic reserves and fiscal responsibility will assure a balanced budget that meets California’s needs.”

But there is no actual deal yet, points out CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff. Negotiations on how to reduce the shortfall are ongoing, with lawmakers heading out of town after today until April 1 for their spring recess.

The announcement follows Capitol visits earlier this week by Newsom for private talks with Rivas and McGuire and last week’s actions by Senate Democrats, who unveiled their early budgetary action plan to “shrink the shortfall” by about $17 billion.

Describing the budget process as “degraded,” Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican from Roseville and vice chairperson of the Senate Budget Committee, argued that Wednesday’s agreement (however incremental), was made “behind closed doors by one political party.”

• Niello, in a statement: “I am disappointed in this administration on behalf of the people of California. Not allowing public discussions or different viewpoints to weigh in is a disservice to the millions of Californians we represent and erosion of democracy.”

The governor is expected to unveil his revised budget proposal in May that will incorporate new tax revenue data from April. Legislators then have until June to agree on a budget deal.

From CalMatters’ Adam Echelman:

The University of California regents decided Wednesday to postpone a vote on a policy to restrict how academic departments at its campuses publish “political or controversial” statements on their websites. 

It’s the second time this year the regents postponed a decision on the proposed policy. The next discussion will take place at their May meeting. 

The proposed policy would no longer allow political statements on a department’s homepage. But they could still appear on other pages, as long as they have a disclaimer noting the statement doesn’t represent the university. 

For instance, a statement by UC San Diego ethnic studies faculty, which calls for “freedom from an apartheid system” for Palestinians, could remain because it’s not on a homepage. 

The policy change, proposed by UC regent Jay Sures, comes after some faculty members took sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where more than 30,000 people, mostly Palestianians, have died since Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7. The conflict has led to tension on UC campuses, including sparring letters between ethnic studies faculty and Sures.

The UC Academic Senate, arguably the most influential opponent of the policy change, agrees with the regents that academic departments should include a disclaimer whenever political statements by faculty appear on university websites. They also agree that departments should create clearer guidelines around political speech.

During the meeting, protestors began shouting as regents spoke about the policy, forcing them to stop the meeting, before ultimately deciding to postpone their vote.

Campus protests: State Sen. Steve Glazer and other members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus introduced Senate Bill 1287 Wednesday to require public universities to update their student codes of conduct to “prohibit violence, harassment, intimidation and discrimination that impedes free speech or calls for or supports genocide.” 

Citing recent incidents at UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley, the Orinda Democrat acknowledged the rising tensions on college campuses since the Gaza war, but that all students had “the right to be heard.”

The bill would also mandate universities to “develop programs to educate students on how to exchange views respectfully,” said Glazer.

Speaking of UC Berkeley: The February clash between protestors that Glazer mentioned, as well as continuing altercations and the months-long blockade of historical Sather Gate by pro-Palestinan demonstrators, have led to a U.S House investigation, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

In a letter, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, chairperson of the committee leading the investigation, said the probe is in response to reported antisemetic incidents as far back as 2016, and the school’s “failure to protect Jewish students.”

The investigation follows the U.S. Department of Education adding UC Berkeley to its list of schools being investigated for possible discrimination. (In December, Stanford University, UCLA and UC San Diego were also placed on the list.)