XPost: alt.activism.children.molesters, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics XPost: alt.california, alt.politics.democrats

California Republicans are increasingly pushing Democrats on child sex
crimes bills. The supermajority is growing more divided about it.

Welcome to CalMatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to
covering issues that affect all Californians. Sign up for WhatMatters to receive the latest news and commentary on the most important issues in the Golden State.

California Republicans have developed something of a formula in the state Legislature.

Push to raise penalties for certain kinds of sex crimes, like trafficking minors. Press the Democrats, many of whom remain wary of increasing prison sentences in the waning heyday of criminal justice reform, on the details.
Have a field day in the media with the ensuing public outrage.

It’s become a reliable way over the past three years to deliver small wins
for the superminority party. Even if Republicans aren’t always successful
at passing the legislation, they can use it to expose fault lines among
the opposing party that dominates the Capitol, or even score some support
from the state’s de facto Democratic leader, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

That strategy has led them to win bipartisan approval for bills to
increase the penalties for child sex trafficking and soliciting 15-year-
olds and under for sex.

The latest such episode exploded in the Assembly this week when
Republicans tried to push Democrats to increase penalties for soliciting
16- and 17-year-olds for sex or prostitution. That crime is a misdemeanor punishable by between two days to a year in jail.

Solicitation involves asking for or arranging sex in exchange for money or something valuable; a host of other sex crimes involving minors of any age
are felonies, including paying for and having sex with a minor.

This time, Republicans had the backing of freshman Democratic
Assemblymember Maggy Krell, of Sacramento, who authored Assembly Bill 379. Krell objected on Tuesday when her colleagues removed the provision on soliciting older minors, saying fellow Democrats had forced her to agree
to it on the threat the Public Safety committee would refuse to hold a
hearing otherwise.

When Republicans said they would try to add the provision into another
bill on the floor on Thursday, she bucked Democratic leadership by
supporting them.

“We need to say, loud and clear, that if you’re under 18, a child, a minor
… the person buying that person should be charged with a felony,” she said
on the Assembly floor. “It’s plain and simple, sex without consent –
that’s rape.”

Some moderate Democrats joined her, publicly chiding their colleagues for walking into a political landmine.

“Somehow, as our president tanks our economy and deports innocent
children, the American people still don’t trust Democrats,” said
Bakersfield Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains. “Any sane person knows that purchasing a 16- and 17-year-old for sex should be a felony, not a
misdemeanor. This should not be a debate.”

A rare intervention from Newsom
Democrats already did the same thing last year.

When they passed a Republican bill to increase penalties for soliciting
minors, they carved out 16 and 17-year-olds out of concern the provision
would treat older teenagers who are in consenting relationships the same
as human traffickers. With the passage of that law, soliciting minors who
are 15 or younger is punishable by up to three years in jail.

Newsom, too, earlier this week issued a statement supporting the higher penalties for minors of all ages — a rare, but not unprecedented,
intervention from a governor who occasionally chides fellow progressives
when he thinks they’ve gone too far.

The Republican effort failed on the Assembly floor Thursday, though it did garner some support from Democrats, like Bains. And it forced Democrats
into a defensive mode.

They inserted language into the bill expressing their “intent” to address
the question of older teens, and continue debating the matter in future hearings this year. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas also stripped Krell’s
name from the bill and wrote in two Democratic co-authors, Assembly Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz and Elk Grove Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, a moderate Democrat.

Schultz, a Burbank Democrat, said he plans to hold informational hearings
on the issue and hopes to pass some form of amended bill this fall. The
bill, without the higher penalties for soliciting older teens, is headed
to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a San Diego Republican, vowed to make
Democrats pay for the move in the next election.

“I don’t think voters are going to fall for this, and I will spend every
day working to ensure that,” he said.

Progressives warn of ‘unintended harm’ to teens
Krell, a former prosecutor of sex crimes known for taking on the operators
of the trafficking website Backpage, introduced AB 379 to target buyers of teenage victims in the sex trade.

It’s supported by Republicans, organizations that help survivors, law enforcement, including Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, and Lt. Gov.
Eleni Kounalakis. The proposal would make it a crime to loiter with the
intent to purchase sex, and would use the fines from those charges to fund services for trafficking survivors.

Krell’s fellow Democrats mostly don’t have a problem with that. But they objected to the bill’s inclusion of making the solicitation of 16- and 17- year-olds a “wobbler” on the first offense, meaning it could be charged as
a misdemeanor or a felony. They had just removed an identical provision
from a law by Republican Sen. Shannon Grove, of Bakersfield, last year,
that made solicitation of 15-year-olds (or any minor who is a trafficking victim) a “wobbler” on first offense.

Progressives, criminal justice reform advocates and other organizations
that help survivors are concerned with blurry lines in some young people’s relationships. In a statement, Anne Irwin, director of Smart Justice California, said the provision “risked unintended harm to minors.”

Democrats said they don’t want to allow older teenagers to be charged with felonies if their parents don’t approve of an interracial or an LGBTQ consenting relationship.

“Sending an 18-year-old high school senior to state prison for offering
his 17-year-old classmate $20 to fool around isn’t smart criminal justice policy,” Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, wrote on social
media this week.

Proponents of the legislation have said those concerns are largely hypothetical. They countered that prosecutors wouldn’t spend time charging teenagers who are having consensual sex. (The legal age of consent is 18.) Grove, who co-authored Krell’s bill, said though it’s already a felony to
pay for sex with any minor, any conversation and deal-making that precedes
that act should be stopped.

But Schultz and Rivas accused their critics of playing politics and
misstating current laws. In addition to it being a felony to have sex with
a minor, it is also a felony to contact any minor to commit sexual offense
and to send sexual text messages to minors.

“No one in the room is OK with” minors being sold for sex, Rivas said.
“This is a nuanced issue and conversation.”

Schultz would not share details of how he envisions changing the bill to include 16- and 17-year-olds later this year, but said he’s considering provisions that lessen penalties for the alleged offender if he’s close in
age to the victim — similar to carve-outs in the state’s statutory rape
laws.

Rivas dismissed the idea the issue had become a political liability for Democrats.

“It’s always high stakes around here,” he said. “Our commitment is to get
it right.”

A previous version of this story incorrectly said Sen. Scott Wiener
supported removing felony penalties for 16- and 17-year-olds from
legislation last year. Wiener supported the final version of the bill that included higher penalties in cases where there is evidence of human trafficking.

https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/05/california-democrats-teen-sex- solicitation/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)