Californians should be able to agree that convicted sex offenders should not be allowed to hold public office.
Yet legislators killed a proposed ban because of a bizarre fight over which sex offenses should count. Local officials searched for a legal basis to keep him off the ballot, but because no law prohibited a registered sex offender from running for local office, Ultimately, the candidate failed to gather enough signatures to qualify.
But the incident exposed a glaring gap in California law. Rene Campos, a registered sex offender, attempted to run for a Fresno City Council seat, stirring up more controversy by holding a news conference across from a school.would prohibit individuals convicted of sexual assault or human trafficking from seeking elected office. Neither proposal was controversial. Both passed the Assembly without a single vote in opposition.
They reflected a simple principle: Those who have committed some of society’s most serious crimes should not be entrusted with positions of public trust. A California Senate hearing on two bills — AB 2691 and AB 2753 — trying to ban sex offenders from elected office. What happened to AB 2691 was even more disturbing. Rather than advancing the bill as written, the committee chair required amendments that would exempt some convictions when the victim was a minor.
His concern was so-called “Romeo and Juliet” couples, close in age but on either side of the legal age of consent. An adult who sexually assaulted another adult? Cannot run for office under this bill. But victimizing a minor close in age?
Totally fine to run for school board or city council or any other elected office. Democrat Scott Wiener of San Francisco convinced colleagues to abstain from supporting a bill that would prohibit sex offenders from qualifying for the ballot. This should never have been a difficult vote. These bills were not about limiting political speech or denying due process.
Every individual covered by the legislation has already been convicted in a court of law, afforded every constitutional protection and sentenced accordingly. The question before the committee was much narrower: Should someone with those convictions be eligible to hold one of the highest positions of public trust in our communities? For generations, California has recognized that certain criminal convictions carry consequences beyond a prison sentence.
We prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms, require professional licensing boards to consider criminal history and disqualify individuals from positions involving vulnerable populations. Elected offices should be held to at least that same standard. The public has every right to expect that those entrusted to write laws, oversee taxpayer dollars and represent their communities meet the highest standards of character and integrity.
If someone has been convicted of a sex offense, especially against a minor, why should voters be forced to confront the possibility of that individual appearing on the ballot? Why should election officials have no legal authority to prevent it? I’ve been around Sacramento long enough to expect budget gimmicks, procedural games and criminal justice proposals I strongly disagree with. I’ve seen legislation that places ideological priorities ahead of public safety.
But this hits a new low. The Legislature routinely tells Californians that protecting children is among its highest priorities. Those words ring hollow when lawmakers carve out special exemptions that would allow convicted sexual predators to pursue elected office. Californians deserve better than this.
Public office is a privilege, not a right guaranteed regardless of someone’s criminal history. If the state Legislature cannot agree that all individuals convicted of sex offenses should be disqualified from seeking elected office, then it has lost sight of the basic standards the public expects from those entrusted with governing our state. Californians should take note. Tri Ta is a Republican member of the California Assembly for the 70th district, representing much of Little Saigon.
Rene Campos, a registered sex offender, attempted to run for a Fresno City Council seat, stirring up more controversy by holding a news conference across from a school. A California Senate hearing on two bills — AB 2691 and AB 2753 — trying to ban sex offenders from elected office. Democrat Scott Wiener of San Francisco convinced colleagues to abstain from supporting a bill that would prohibit sex offenders from qualifying for the ballot.
Please follow us on Google to support usCalifornia Northern California Office Sacramento Scott Wiener Sex Offenders Voting
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
322,000 Californians sign up to have data brokers delete their personal informationCalifornians who sign up by Aug. 1 will see their data purged in the first round of deletions.
Read more »
Californians blast 2028 Olympics organizers seeking 60,000 unpaid volunteers — ‘F- -king crooks’The games will be played, but the workers won’t be paid. Whistleblowers across the world wide web are wailing in outrage against LA28, the nonprofit organizing committee overseeing the 2028 S…
Read more »
DMV says suspected cheating is why 11,000 Californians must retake the written testCalifornia's DMV said that irregularities pointing to possible cheating — and not any internal issues — are the reason thousands of Californians are being required to retake their knowledge test.
Read more »
As California’s gas taxes rise, drivers understandably feel ripped offCalifornians are paying for a first-rate highway system but aren’t getting one.
Read more »