Special Episode: A Conference on Crime, Panel 3 – The Legacy and Future of Prop. 47

CAPITOL WEEKLY PODCAST: This Special Episode of the Capitol Weekly Podcast was recorded live at Capitol Weekly’s Conference on Crime, which was held in Sacramento on Thursday, March 21, 2024

 This is PANEL 3 – THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF PROP. 47

Panelists: Asm. Kevin McCarty; Lenore Anderson, Alliance for Safety and Justice; Marc Beaart, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office; Sheriff Jim Cooper

 Moderated by Emily Hoeven, San Francisco Chronicle

 This transcript has been edited for clarity.

EMILY HOEVEN: Hi, everyone. Okay. Making sure you can hear me. Yes, I’m Emily Hoeven. I’m an opinion columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle. Thrilled to be here with this this great panel. We have right here, Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, who is chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. We have Lenore Anderson of the Alliance for Safety and Justice. She is also one of the co-authors of Prop. 47. We have Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper. And we have Mark Beaart from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. So these are very folks with a lot of expertise, a lot more than me. So if it gets chaotic, blame them, not me. And I’m really excited for the for the conversation today.

So we’re going to jump right in because there’s a ton to discuss. And I actually wanted to start with Lenore because as one of the co-authors of Prop. 47, that seems like the appropriate foundation. Lenore, there’s a lot of different understandings, conceptions, misconceptions about Prop. 47. Can you tell us about the changes that it actually made to California law and talk about some of the impacts that it has had in California since voters approved it in 2014, specifically when it comes to crime rates, recidivism rates and cost savings.

LENORE ANDERSON: Sure. And it’s great to be a part of the conversation this afternoon. I always think it’s to just ground everyone in the context of the Proposition 47, which passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2014. California was in the midst of a prisons crisis. This is the state that built 22 prisons and only one university in a 25 year time period. Incarceration expenditures went up by 1,500% over that time period, and still we had such extreme overcrowding in our state prisons that the US Supreme Court required the state to reduce overcrowding.

That was what was happening at the time of the initiation of the Proposition 47 campaign. In response to this extreme prison crowding crisis that was depleting state budgets, Proposition 47 was one of several reforms that were enacted to address that. And what the measure does is essentially three things.

“We’ve abated the prison crisis in California by reducing incarceration. Proposition 47 reduced incarceration within about a year and a half of its passage by about 15,000 people in both prisons and jails” – Lenore Anderson

First, Proposition 47 reclassified six low level crimes from the felony wobbler classification to the misdemeanor classification, which still authorizes jail time and probation, but prevents them from entering into the state prison system as a part of their sentence. The second thing that Proposition 47 did was it required the state of California on an annual basis to calculate how much savings the measure was enacting in the state prison budget and reallocate those savings to community based prevention programs, diversion programs, reentry programs and mental health treatment. The third thing that the measure did was that it authorized people with old criminal records to get relief, to get record change relief.

And that was with a view towards allowing people with one of these old felony records, no matter how far back, to be able to get out from under the lifetime penalty of a felony conviction on their record and get access to things like jobs and housing. So in terms of the second part of your question, as it relates to impacts, this measure has been overwhelmingly successful.

Let me just describe to you some of the ways in which Proposition 47 has improved safety and justice in California. First, this the measure helped California get out from under that prisons crisis that I was describing. We’ve abated the prison crisis in California by reducing incarceration. Proposition 47 reduced incarceration within about a year and a half of its passage by about 15,000 people in both prisons and jails. And that among the chief reasons that the state was able to get out from under the receivership. Right, get out from under noncompliance with federal receivership as it relates to overcrowding.

PANEL 3 – THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF PROP. 47. L-R: Emily Hoeven, San Francisco Chronicle; Asm. Kevin McCarty; Lenore Anderson, Alliance for Safety and Justice; Sheriff Jim Cooper. Not pictured: Marc Beaart, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. Photo by Joha Harrison, Capitol Weekly

That’s a huge victory. Just to put that in context for you, when California’s prisons were at 200 plus percent of extreme overcrowding, despite spending tens of millions of dollars, one person was dying per week in California prisons as a result of medical neglect. How? Because of extreme crowding. So that’s what we’re talking about when we’re talking about prison crowding. Okay.

But then let’s move over to the other positive benefits of Proposition 47. About $800 million has been saved in the state’s prison budget, and that has been reallocated to effective programs that approach solving the drivers of crime in a different way. Let me just give you a couple of examples of the type of programs that have been funded through Proposition 47.

There’s the STARR Program in San Francisco. This is a program that’s focused on jail diversion, recovery and reentry. It has reduced recidivism for participants down to 2%, and it has reduced homelessness for participants by 60%.

Another example of a program is a program in Los Angeles called Project Impact that’s focused on reducing recidivism for Dual Diagnosis for people who are experiencing both mental health as well as substance use disorder crises. This program has reduced homelessness by 50% and has a recidivism rate of just 7%. That’s what Proposition 47 dollars fund.

One more example: Trauma Recovery Centers. These are centers that are focused on alleviating the impact of violent injury for the victims, who are the most harmed by chronic cycles of violence and crime and the least helped. These programs reduce chronic stress, PTSD, improve homelessness, improve employment rates for underserved victims of violence, and also improve cooperation with law enforcement systems. So those are some of the impacts of Proposition 47 on California.

EH: Thank you so much. And we have a lot more to discuss. So I’m going to jump over to to Sheriff Jim Cooper to talk a little bit about the impacts of Proposition 47 that he has perceived as a law enforcement officer. And yeah, there was a recent report that came out from the state that, as Lenore mentioned, did highlight significantly improved recidivism rates for folks that had participated in Prop. 47 programs. Although there were still a fair amount that did not finish the programs. And that was correlated with the best outcomes. There still were positive impacts, but I think there are also other impacts. Some may be more closely related to Prop. 47 than others that state of Californians have seen.

You know we’ve all at Walgreens having seen locked up was cases of every day cheap items. We’ve seen security guards at the outside of stores that I personally don’t remember seeing five years or so ago. And, you know, I do think Prop. 47 gets blamed for things that maybe it didn’t necessarily cause, but which I do think it’s important to kind of talk with the Sheriff who has been handling this on a day to day basis.

Sheriff, when you were a state lawmaker, you introduced some bills to reform aspects of Prop. 47. Yet you have also very publicly voiced your frustration with certain retailers for kind of not helping you in your efforts to handle shoplifting and other low, lower level thefts that, that you and your officers are observing. So can you talk about I guess, how much problem is this Prop. 47 versus all the different folks that out interplaying with that?

SHERIFF JIM COOPER: It’s actually directly related to Prop. 47. If Prop. 47 was working so good, why do we have over 20 bills introduced this year in the legislature to deal with Prop. 47 issues? That’s where the crux of it is. The opponents say, “crime is down, crime is down.” It’s not down, it’s underreported.

We did an operation here in Sacramento County – in a week span targeted seven businesses.  Over 300 arrests for theft. Not homelessness – 12 were homeless out of 300. Not stealing for food. For theft because the laws… no one gets in trouble, is citation. That’s the issue what it is. And we really need accountability.

“Decriminalize drugs, that’s fine. But you have to have that hammer in there to make people seek treatment. They aren’t seeking treatment at all” – Sheriff Jim Cooper

Think about it. Recidivism rate in the county jail: over 70%. Recidivism rate in state prison: over 70%. When they did that on Prop. 47… or prior to Prop. 47… we had Drug Court. So if you went to court and you had a problem, addiction problem, a judge could say, “you know what, I’m going to put you in rehab and get you clean. And once you’re clean, we’ll expunge your record.”

When prop 47 came along, it dropped by 70%. No one does Drug Court anymore. You have to have a hammer to force people in. And it’s really, as far as drug addiction, that is a substance abuse issue. You should not be in jail. But if you have a drug problem, where do you go? Where do you get help at? You don’t get the help.

We’ve seen the problems in San Francisco, in L.A., our homeless crisis. A lot of it’s directly attributable to drugs and people are stealing to do that, to fund their habits. How do we change that?

Yeah. Retail theft is a big issue. You have retail theft rings, but it’s a slow drip, day in and day out that’s going… mom and pop stores, the big box retailers. And that’s really what it comes down to. It is vastly underreported. Most of your big box retailers, they have a non confrontation policy in that when their employees see someone shoplifting, they are banned from stopping them. Prior to Prop. 47 They will stop them and make the arrest themselves. It doesn’t happen anymore.

So ask your small mom and pop stores that are being affected. They can’t do it. The big box retailers write it off. It has been a significant issue in how we deal with that. A lot of this, like I said, comes back to Prop. 47 issues. Decriminalize drugs, that’s fine. But you have to have that hammer in there to make people seek treatment. They aren’t seeking treatment at all. And that’s the issue. How do you help somebody with that? And drug court did a great job, a tremendous job… expunged records. We want to get them clean and get them the help they need. And that’s ultimately what it comes down to.

Prop. 47 was a Safe Streets and Schools initiative. A lot of bills were run between 2014 and a year ago never had a chance. But why is it everyone’s getting bills now coming on board? Because the problem is so bad. The new normal of going in a store and having plexiglass covering lotions, soaps, deodorant, just mundane things. The public is fed up. Prices are high. They see folks walk in and out or run out and stealing stuff. They see it day in and day out. So what has happened? The tide has changed. The public’s kind of fed up with it. They want something done.

We’ve seen the polls – it polls over 90%. I came on board today on the initiative. The initiative will win. It will pass in November. Bottom line is because the public sentiment has changed so much. And that’s ultimately what it comes down to. We’ve got to fix it, but you have to have the rehab for people and we don’t have that. And for me and a lot of folks in law enforcement, we want to see them get the help and they aren’t getting it.

EH: Thank you, Sheriff. And I just wanted to add a few data points. I was looking at Public Policy Institute of California data before this… yeah, PPIC, and they were they had found that through December 2022, which is the latest for which we have state level data, shoplifting was 8% below pre-COVID levels, but it jumped 29% from 2019 to 2022. And commercial burglary and and robbery had risen 16% and 13%, respectively, from 2019 to 2022.

So, you know, crime… there is this understanding that a lot of crime in general is underreported. But with the data we have, those numbers, I think have been translated in the public frustration.

PANEL 3 – THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF PROP. 47. Moderator, Emily Hoeven, San Francisco Chronicle. Photo by Joha Harrison, Capitol Weekly

I want to quickly jump to, to Marc down at the L.A. County DA’s office. Marc, would you say that Prop. 47 has impacted your ability to prosecute certain types of crimes? And I want to note that supporters say, you know, there’s nothing in the law that prevents prosecution, nothing that prevents you from stacking offenses to kind of get a higher level felony offense that could result in a steeper sentence. But how does that play out in practice? And do you agree with the sheriff that fewer folks are entering treatment as a result of Prop. 47?

MARC BEAART: Okay, well I’ll begin. Prop. 47 is not an impediment in L.A. County in prosecuting organized retail theft. Number one, we are assertive in the charges that we file. We file conspiracy. We file receiving stolen property. We file robbery, even when there is a lack of this of the typical force or fear element.

To give you an example, we had 11 people all wearing hoodies. One had a plastic bag, they ran into a store. They started smashing and grabbing. No customers were touched. No one was threatened. We had them held to answer at a preliminary hearing for robbery and conspiracy for robbery, because the fact that they were all dressed similarly was simply terrifying to everyone in the store.

“The $950 threshold is a red herring for the public. Thirty-eight states have a higher level. Texas, which has an ORT problem, is $2500 to obtain a felony. The vast majority of states are over the amount of California.” – Marc Beaart

And we are pursuing cases under 211, which is a felony. Conspiracy, even if it’s under $950, we will file conspiracy on the misdemeanor and now have a felony to go forward. If we can’t go after someone at the moment, and then three weeks later, we find them with a lot of property from that retailer, and we can prove it, that it came from that specific store. We will file receiving stolen property. We did that with one Nike crew. We had over 96 felony counts, and they were held to answer on every single one.

In certain cases, we have individuals who will steal a few hundred dollars and they have a serious conviction, such as under 490… sorry, 459.5, a serious, violent and violent conviction. And we can use that misdemeanor with their prior to create a felony. Now, we only do that in certain cases where there are ringleaders and usually with juveniles. But we have the tools, and Prop. 47 is not an impediment.

And the $950 threshold is a red herring for the public. Thirty-eight states have a higher level. Texas, which has an ORT problem, is $2500 to obtain a felony. The vast majority of states are over the amount of California. Highering or lowering that amount will not have any impact on our ability to prosecute. And then on the last question and I’m sorry, I missed that.

EH: Oh, yeah. I was just wondering if you agree with the sheriff that fewer people are, if you’re, you know transferring them to diversion programs or fewer people entering drug treatment or other types of programs?

MB: So in L.A. County, we’ve decided to allocate our resources in the most efficient way possible. We do not prosecute low level drug offenses. We use our resources for higher and better prosecutions that have a greater impact on the community.

EH: Well, now I’m going to turn to the the man who might control the outcomes of a lot of things here. This is Assemblyman McCarty, who leads the Assembly Public Safety Committee. And as the Sheriff mentioned, there are a lot of different bills under consideration in Sacramento right now to either address aspects of Prop. 47, which would require going back to the voters. Or just addressing retail theft, drug use in different ways.

We’ve had the leaders of the state Assembly and the Senate, in addition to the governor, go on record saying that they do not believe Prop. 47 needs to be reformed, but they do have bills to address the problem from different angles. I believe Assemblyman, just yesterday I read in Politico that you said you were open to possibly looking at Prop. 47 and potentially agreed that aspects of it might need to be reformed. I’m curious if you can talk us through your process for weighing and balancing the pros and cons of these bills. Kind of represented by some of the different perspectives we’ve heard here today. And what do you think the appetite is in the legislature for reforming Prop. 47?

ASM. KEVIN MCCARTY: Sure. Well, I think that’s a fair assessment that I’m kind of the referee, and trying to be unbiased and looking at the whole issue and remedies. And you know, when I took this position after chairing a Budget Committee for, for nine years, it’s a new position for me. And the Speaker asked me, “do you want to take it, take a crack at this for your final year?” And I said, “sure. But I don’t want to do it business as usual.”

Because I think that we’ve gotten to a point where we need to look at other opportunities and ideas for reform. And bringing about more balance to the system. And I think that, you know, two things can be true. We can be proud of some of the work we did, as Lenore mentioned, to reduce overcrowding in our state prisons, overly warehousing people for low level crimes that probably don’t need to be incarcerated for so long.

But also we can think about things like slipping through the cracks. And I do think that people do slip through the cracks with related to retail theft. I want to focus on both the organized side and just, you know, the convenience store type side. So I think the two are very, very different. But the big picture you asked is, is there reform to go back to the ballot? You know, if you look at our Speaker’s comments the other day, he said he doesn’t want to go repeal Prop 47. And I think that’s the same way as I feel, too. But do we need… and I think we focused too much on Prop 47. It’s more on retail theft laws.

“my perception is that everything is on the table. This is a process. You know, there’s a potential ballot measure, as our sheriff said, which is likely going to qualify in the coming weeks. As we know, that always puts pressure on the legislature to act” – Asm. Kevin McCarty

So do we need to reform retail theft laws? Can you do it statutorily? Or do you need to go back to the voters to have them weigh in? And based upon what we’re told because of prior measures, 47 we need to go back if we want to comprehensively address retail theft from the organized retail side, the big box side, as well as the small stores… And I’ll just paint a little picture.

You know, a few weeks ago, I I went to visit a Home Depot and they told me how the retail theft happens in the organized manner, and I was blown away by people coming in there with lists. And afterwards they fence it on like these warehouses or online. They ship it across the seas, overseas. And just the other day I was I was down here in Sacramento at the river. I love to visit our river. And I met a woman. I have a paddle board, and she’s like, where’d you get that? I was like, you can buy them anywhere. You can buy them at Costco. She says, “well, if you want another one, I’ll get you one at REI and I’ll do .50 on the dollar. I’ll sell it to you.” I was like, what do you mean? She’s like, “I’ll go in there and I’ll get it for you, and you give me .50 on the dollar and I’ll resell it to you if you want to buy another one.” I was like, “no, but thanks for the information.”

It’s like, wow, you know?

So that’s a very different crop of people that I think are impacting the convenience stores. And, and I think our members universally, they’re very sympathetic to what we hear at Target and Walmart. But what they hear at our grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores, is the death by a thousand cuts. And I think some of the remedies that that the governor has put out there are good ones, I think, but it’s, in my view, kind of a third of a loaf, because you’re really you’re dealing with the organized side and the Wall Street, you know, protecting those assets. But Main Street in our communities, small grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores.. with the petty theft, with a priors type crowd. You can’t address that without going back to the voters.

Whether it’s… whether you call it 47 or not, you have to go back to the voters to address that. So my perception is that everything is on the table. This is a process. You know, there’s a potential ballot measure, as our sheriff said, which is likely going to qualify in the coming weeks. As we know, that always puts pressure on the legislature to act. And will we act at something significant? Yes. And I think that going back to the voters is still very much on the table because you can’t have a comprehensive solution without addressing the organized retail side as well as the impacts on the smaller stores. And that is petty theft with a prior, which must be approved by the electorate.

EH: The so you’re basically saying that comprehensive reform would have to go to the ballot in some form or another?

KM: Yes. And that’s my perspective. And, you know, you know, we have a process. Our legislative leaders have opinions. We all have opinions. There’s, you know, 20 plus bills on this. And, you know, if this was in two weeks from now you would know our plan. But we’re still too early. I’m not going to tell you today, but we will address this by the fourth week of April. And there will be significant legislation. And I feel will be comprehensive.

EH: Is this legislation that may not be currently in its printed form like it? There may be tweaks, significant tweaks.

KM: It may or may not be.

EH: More. Well, we’ll let that we’ll let that simmer for now. Lenore, I want to turn back to you because, obviously all this talk about, you know, reforming, repealing, changing Prop. 47. In 2020, you all remember there was a ballot measure to remove parts of Prop. 47 and voters overwhelmingly rejected it. But now there’s another measure live and its seems to sort of have garnered more bipartisan or bigger support than it did in 2020… we have San Francisco Mayor London Breed coming out in support of it, for example. Some other high profile Democrats. Do you view this measure as a more serious threat to Prop 47? How has the political climate changed? What sort of messaging to this would you want to convey to that would blame Prop. 47 for a lot of these ills?

LA: Well you know, a lot has changed since 2020. We’re living in a time of significantly more uncertainty. And a lot more sent sentiments of desperation among voters. So it is definitely a very big threat and a very big concern. Whether it’s the shift that has happened in the marketplace as a result of Covid. Whether it’s the shift that has happened in the economy, we are certainly living in a time where many people experience feelings of fear.

And we, we want to make sure that we are honest about that. Right? Everyone deserves safety. There’s no question about that. That’s a foundational value that I think we all hold. Retailers certainly deserve safety.

What I worry about as it relates to this Ballot Initiative is that it will not resolve voters’ concerns. The desire for safety, the desire to have a balanced and effective approach to public safety won’t be achieved through this ballot measure and we’ll be standing here facing similar problems as we face today.

“It is important for the public to understand is how few crimes actually get solved by the criminal justice system to begin with. You know, property crime, in particular, has had a solved rate in California abysmally low before Proposition 47 and after. The current property theft crimes solved rate is around 7%” – Lenore Anderson

Let me just give you a couple of reasons why I think that that would be the outcome. First, we have to really look closely at the drivers of shifts in crime. Whether we’re talking about retail crime or we’re talking about violent crime. It’s important to always confront the drivers. There are national trends that are at play, that are similar. What we’re seeing in California is happening similarly in other cities and states. Which means it’s not the fault of Proposition 47.

There’s significant shifts in crime post COVID. A lot of changes in how people shop. We see fewer people in stores and storefronts and a lot of people online which is a less regulated place for shopping. That’s caused significant shifts. Those things wouldn’t be addressed by this ballot.

The other thing that it is important for the public to understand is how few crimes actually get solved by the criminal justice system to begin with. You know, property crime, in particular, has had a solved rate in California abysmally low before Proposition 47 and after. The current property theft crimes solved rate is around 7%.

Okay, so the vast majority of the crimes that are happening that communities are concerned about are not being resolved by the criminal justice system. We need to update and improve and support law enforcement, and then updating, improving the capacity to investigate and solve crime. And that’s a key barrier.

The other challenge that we know has been a longstanding challenge with the enormous bureaucracies that make up our criminal justice system is these are not bureaucracies that easily adapt to change. These aren’t necessarily institutions that can quickly improve or change misdemeanor sentencing practices, how quickly people get in front of court, whether or not appropriate information related to bench warrants things like that are shared effectively between law enforcement and court.

We need to do a lot more work to improve the overall functioning of the criminal justice system so that we have better outcomes.

But perhaps the most important thing that will not be resolved and in fact will be harmed by this ballot initiative, is the amount of money available for the effective programs we need at the community level to stop the cycle of crime. We know an awful lot about the drivers of crime, whether it’s the combination of economic desperation, unresolved trauma, experiences with mental health and substance use disorder.

The solutions are there. They are woefully underfunded. They are not necessarily considered a centerpiece of our approach to public safety. We need things like overdose prevention centers on every corner. We need trauma recovery centers to support victims of violence on every corner. We need crisis responders. We need violence interruption programs that can stop cycles of violence and harm in our communities.

Those are the kinds of centerpieces of an ecosystem of safety that have never been effectively invested in and that has put too much burden and pressure on the justice system to try and be the one size fits all place to respond. We’ve got to reverse that. Until we do, California voters won’t get what they want.

PANEL 3 – THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF PROP. 47. L-R: Emily Hoeven, San Francisco Chronicle; Asm. Kevin McCarty; Lenore Anderson, Alliance for Safety and Justice; Sheriff Jim Cooper. Not pictured: Marc Beaart, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. Photo by Joha Harrison, Capitol Weekly

EH: Thank you. And I had one quick follow up for you, actually, that just came to me. Is there any sort of unintended consequence of Prop. 47 that you do think could be addressed? I mean, for example, I was thinking about the comment about fewer people going into diversion. Again, you noted that that these sort of programs that are funded by Prop. 47 have been effective in reducing the recidivism rate. But what do you think about, sort of the folks that are continuing to go through and then, you know, not entering treatment, not taking advantage of those programs and then potentially, you know, is there is that something that you think could be shifted or clarified… or… Basically, I guess what I’m trying to ask is, do you see any sort of tweak as beneficial that may or may not involve going to the ballot, if that makes sense?

LA: Yeah. The frequent problem with most criminal justice reform is not the reform itself, it’s the implementation of it.  The entire justice system has to adapt. When we hear messages from voters that they want a balanced approach to public safety. That means updating who is eligible for things like diversion and treatment. There’s no shortage of people in the justice system working with substance use disorder. What’s limited is the availability of those programs and the eligibility of who gets in to those programs.

“Well over half the legislature wants us to address this issue” – Asm. Kevin McCarty 

We need to significantly expand opportunities for the other are cycling in and out of the justice system to be placed in appropriate treatment environments. There’s a lot of additional reforms that need to be made to improve the implementation of criminal justice reform, but the foundational idea that the policy is the problem, as opposed to the implementation of it, is where I think voters are being misled.

EH: Thank you. Assemblyman, you kind of answered this question, but I’m going to bring it back to you again, just for a bit more explanation there. So you were mentioning how this ballot initiative likely will qualify for the ballot, and it will put pressure on the legislature to potentially reach an agreement that could result in the measure being pulled. But I would love for you to be able to kind of explain that, that process to folks who may not be familiar with how it places pressure on the legislature and what sort of what sorts of things might be, might be considered in terms of what would be acceptable to the proponents in terms of actually withdrawing that ballot measure.

KM: Well, I’m currently talking to RDA here, and, and my counterpart in Yolo County just across the river, Jeff Reisig about their measure. Some of the measure.. some of the pieces of their measure, I think maybe go a little too far.  I can dig into some of the parts. I think we can work with. We always want to see in public policy. It’s not always black and white. Our job, especially as a referee, is to find gray in the middle and back up. Before that.

Whether or not there’s a ballot measure or not, the legislature is split. But more than… well over half the legislature wants us to address this issue, dealing with the organized side and kind of the non organized, which impact the petty theft with a prior. They’re not convenience stores. Grocery stores type that. And they know you can’t do it by just going to the governor’s office with a signature. They know the second piece of it. You must go back to the ballot.

So there’s a there’s way more than 50% of legislature that are perfectly fine going back to the ballot. That being said, there is a ballot measure that’s likely going to qualify. And in the last ten years, we’ve seen this over and over. Where there’s a ballot measure, there’s time for us to work. And that’s what the best opportunity is for us to all work together.

You know, there are certain things of that measure which I think, you know, maybe go a little too far. I’ll give you two examples. One is the time where you’re arrested for retail theft, you know, washed out, period. If you’re, you know, popped twice in the ‘90s and then you’re popped again in 2024, something happened, you know, 25, 30 years ago.  [Garbled] that be 3 or 4, or should it just be within a shorter period of time?

You know, if somebody does have some accountability after multiple arrests, should state prison be the the accountability place or county jail? I think that’s a legitimate question as well. You know, should there be multiple opportunities for diversion? And the collaborative courts that people get treatment.

So I think there are some nuances that I’m already looking at. And yes, I think if the measure qualifies, which it likely will, I believe there will be a desire to work something out. But working something out will not be, you know, just having a measure signed. I don’t think the proponents would go for that because they realize to do anything significant, you have to go back to the voters because of Prop. 47.

But, you know, that’s our job, is to look for balance and common ground. And you know, we have many months left in this legislative session, so I am quite confident that we will respond to this issue.

And let’s face it, our constituents are asking us, they’re frustrated. They see, you know, they see the ridiculous TikTok videos on that. And that’s not normal. People usually don’t see those smash and grab type stuff, but they do see going to Target, having to buzz somebody to get a razor, and they just say, why is this happening? Or they see at the grocery store somebody walking out with stuff, and they see its impacts and, and it’s gotten to be a big issue. You know, I will say that, you know, I, I’m doing something else locally here on the political front. And people ask me about this all the time. They’re like, “what?”

EH: What something else is that? [laughter]

KM: You know, civic government on the City of Sacramento side. And they say, “what can the city do to address this?” And it’s a state issue. We need to change state laws. And there really the issue is to change state laws, can you do it by passing a law, having the governor sign it? Or do you have to go back to the voters having a significant response? And you know, that’s the the equation that we’re working at. And, and I think we will answer the call this summer.

EH: So it sounds a bit like it’s going to go if, if it goes to the ballot, the one you would want to go to the ballot is the legislative version, potentially, rather than the one being crafted by the DAs.

KM: Yes, 100%. And we’re being honest and talking to the DAs about that, and they’re quite open to that. But I don’t think that they just want us to rubber stamp something that’s minimal. It doesn’t really address the issue. And so there will be a back and forth. We have a tight window. You ask how this works. So you know, by the time we essentially go on summer recess in July, we have to kind of lock down what’s going to go on the ballot for November. So we’d have to fast track these discussions.

And, you know, we see the legislature take up measures all the time within a week or so. So where there’s a will there’s a way. So, ironically it’s all happening at the same time. We have to have these measures pass the legislature in the house of origin by the fourth week of April. The same time is when this measure is going to be turned into our registrars and to the Secretary of State to qualify that. So this is all gonna be happening in the next few weeks. And that, you know, stay tuned.

EH: Great thank you. I want to go back to you Sheriff Cooper. Obviously you’re out here running the county jail. I’m wondering if you can talk about what is that right balance between sort of the more that more traditional way we think of the criminal justice system, and some of the more rehabilitative reforms that have happened in the last, you know, five or so years. The District Attorney was talking earlier about a pendulum swinging back and forth. Where do you think that that pendulum should land? What is the role of, you know, our officers in uniform in today’s kind of climate?

JC: I think it’s got to swing back. The pendulum has swung too far. And really the issue is we’re having this discussion. And the Assemblyman said the majority of the legislature support reform.

What has happened in the last year is that everybody’s come on board, because the issue has grown so bad. Rome is burning and people are fiddling. And that’s the big issue. Talk about reporting… the sheer volume cars break-ins in San Francisco. Those aren’t all counted. We don’t have those numbers because it’s so vast we can’t get a hold on it.

So we try to rehab and that’s a big issue. These people need help. I want to see them get rehab.. county jail, you’re supposed to be there for a year. So you’re pending trial, you’re going to plead guilty – a year or less to stay. We have inmates sent to county jails now for over five years. And we don’t rehab there – We don’t have the physical space. That’s the issue. Most folks are being sent to county jail not to state prison. That’s the issue. You want rehab; That’s why your numbers are so out of whack. As far as recidivism rate.

Same thing with state prison. You have to do that. And it’s a big issue. The majority of DAs in California say Prop. 47 is screwed up, there’s an issue with it. The vast majority, and that’s why they’re on board supporting this. And it’s frustrating when you have a lot of Democrat mayors in California – London Breed, Todd Gloria, other folks – talking about this, and Democratic lawmakers, now. They realize the problem’s here, we’ve got to do something to fix it. It can’t be the new norm. People are tired of it. They’re expecting it.

The fentanyl problem is huge. What is our purpose for fentanyl, or our answer? We’re putting kits everywhere. And someone passed out Narcan right away. We have Narcan in the jail. Inmate passes out, you come up, they’re getting Narcan, and it’d be a heart attack. That’s the answer. You have to do more than that. You’ve got to attack the substance abuse issue for low level offenders.

Organized retail crime. Reggie Jones-Sawyer bill. There have not been a ton of prosecutions in California because it’s onerous. We PRA’d it. Very few cases are prosecuted like that. Most of the folks that go in and steal are not organized retail theft. It’s low level offenders coming in and stealing because you won’t get in trouble. That’s really who it is. Not out of need – because you won’t get in trouble.

“So for most folks that steal, that $10 to $950, it is a citation. It’s the same as doing a lawn job or graffiti”- Sheriff Jim Cooper

Like I said, 300 people, only 12 are homeless. No one stole food of those 300 in Sacramento. Big screen TVs, all kinds of stuff, because there’s no accountability. We want to hold them accountable. If you have a drug problem, let’s get you help, get you clean and expunge your record. Law enforcement supports that. But something has to be done. It’s driving prices up. People can’t afford to put food on the table because prices are so high. That’s an issue. People are fed up and frustrated. It’s like, why should I pay when someone’s running out the store door? And these days they don’t run out, they walk out.

So I can’t stress enough, especially to the opponents. The numbers are down – It is not reported. Your car gets broken into. What do the cops say? “Go online, file a report.” Most folks don’t do that. The stores where they’re walking out. No one files a report. For a mom and pop shop, you know, what do they file? They don’t file a report.

So that’s why it’s underreported. Having been in the legislature eight years and sheriff of the fifth largest sheriff’s department in California, I see the end result, what’s happening with it, and we are losing it. We’ve got to fix it and do it right. And ultimately, like I said earlier, and you can water down Prop. 47 through legislation. You cannot do anything that enhances it or increases that. Just like the combination – you can’t… you can’t combine theft.

And so for most folks that steal, that $10 to $950, it is a citation. It’s the same as doing a lawn job or graffiti. We don’t have misdemeanors in jails. Only misdemeanors in jails for the most part, in county jails, are domestic violence. The judge says, “hey, you’ve got to stay here,” or a drunk driver. Otherwise we don’t keep misdemeanors in jail. That’s how it is. It’s not… there’s no low level offenders in jail and there haven’t been since 2014. It is all serious felons in our jail right now, 1700 inmates about six blocks away, they average five felony convictions. So the low level stuff has been gone for a long time.

EH: That’s very interesting. Thank you, thank you. Sheriff. Marc, I wanted to turn to you as well, because you were mentioning that you don’t feel that, you know, Prop. 47 has affected your ability to prosecute the way that you need to and want to. Let’s say this this ballot measure or Prop. 47 were to be repealed entirely. How would that change your job? Would… the orders from your superior change? Would you be handling cases differently? What might, how would you translate that to the average person wondering what the difference is like for a prosecutor?

MB: So if Prop. 47 was overruled?

EH: Yeah. No longer existed.

MB: My belief is that my office would continue as if Prop. 47 were still in effect. Now, I don’t speak for the deputy district attorney, I speak for myself.

We’ve had an effective means to cut down on ORT theft task force method, funded by the state to go after ORT. And I often speak with retailers and they’ll give me an idea of what’s going on. But then I look at their annual excuse me, their quarterly conference calls.

“In my opinion that that’s the hallmark of injustice. Sending someone to prison for a theft of a couple hundred dollars” – Marc Beaart

Last year, the every big box retailer was howling about organized retail theft and individual petty theft. In the last quarterly call, two big box retailers said it was overblown. Target specifically say that they’re seeing significant progress. So we are having an effect, nationally and also within our county, in combatting organized retail theft with the tools that we have. And I don’t see why we should bring something back like 666 – petty theft with a prior.

Think about this. All the priorable offenses outside of regulatory compliance in the state of California, there’s the harm of violence or death. And that’s why we make it priorable. Here we’re going to say to an individual, “well, this is the third time you’ve stolen something worth $300, and now we’re going to send you to prison.” In my opinion that that’s the hallmark of injustice. Sending someone to prison for a theft of a couple hundred dollars.

When we also look at individual petty theft – and this is from annual reports from big box retailers – 29%, roughly, from those that discuss shrink, and break it down, is from internal theft.  Fifteen percent is simply lost in logistics. It gets stuck in a warehouse and they forgot it was there; or a truck overturns and the product gets lost.

PANEL 3 – THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF PROP. 47. Question from the audience, Lt. Diane Goldstein. Photo by Joha Harrison, Capitol Weekly

The majority, about 40%, is organized retail theft. That’s what the focus is on. We’re working on the individual theft, with misdemeanors, with 490.4. We are winning this battle. It doesn’t look like it, but we’re going to mitigate this crime, at least in the county where I prosecute, we’re mitigating this crime and it’s working.

The road to success is always under repair. Can it be better? Yes, but we’re beginning to see the green shoots. And then to have something like 666 come in is simply true Draconian.

EH: Thanks for that. Sheriff, I saw you smiling at some portions of that. I wanted to also ask you about retailers. I don’t think we got into this a little bit earlier, but you have also sort of said, retailers need to do more. It’s not just law enforcement, it’s not Prop. 47. There’s things that they need to do. But can you talk a little bit more about that?

JC: Well, the retails are risk averse. It’s all about the image. They don’t want someone being caught in their store and handcuffed. They are risk adverse. They don’t have anything to damage their customer base. And that’s what it comes down to.

California can do whatever they want, but bottom line, California does not dictate to that corporate board how they run their store. Those are corporate boards outside of California.

That the crazy part about it.  I talk to ‘em, I see it. I see it as a lawmaker, I see it as a cop, day in and day out. Folks stealing – it’s not ORT. They’re just going out to steal. That’s the frustrating part… lotta folks are talking about it, but my level of experience in this and having to deal with it.  I’ve done operations and seen it. It is vastly, vastly different. It is not getting better, it is getting worse. And that’s why we’re here today.

That that’s why lawmakers are supporting change. That’s why most of the DAs in California support change. The public supports change. I’ve seen the polls – it polls in the 90^th percentile. Nothing polls that high – because something has to be done. It’s an experiment. It’s failed. And that’s the biggest issue. How do we fix it? Don’t lock them up. Get them help. But what do you do for the folks that don’t want help? That are just stealing to steal. How do you deal with that? We gotta hold them accountable somehow.

And the biggest thing is, it doesn’t send anybody back to state prison. The proposition, Prop. 20, didn’t. It said county jail time, not state prison. The fear mongers want you to believe they’re going to state prison. It’s county jail time. That’s what the proposition said – Prop. 20 back in 2020, and this proposition now… it’s county jail time, if that. And you can divert, you can get on home detention, ankle bracelet monitoring. a lot of alternatives to that. So we can change that.

But the retailers yeah, they own a big piece of this, because they’re scared and they have been scared about making statements and having their image tainted. That’s why they stepped back and said nothing. Privately, I’ve had talks with all of them in the legislature as an assemblyman, with the corporate board members, and their government affairs. So privately, yeah, it’s an issue with it. They don’t want to get out in front and be that person. That’s the issue.

EH: Great. We have just a few minutes left before we open it up to questions. I wanted to ask Lenore and the Assemblyman. The sheriff raised an interesting point, which is how do you respond to folks who, you know are committing low level crimes? You refer them to treatment or diversion. They don’t accept. They continue to kind of go on with stealing or whatever it may be. What is the right sort of path for those individuals that are some of the hardest to, you know, care for or hold accountable? What’s the right balance?

“It’s not the severity of the offense that reduces the likelihood that someone would commit a crime. It’s the swiftness of the consequence” – Lenore Anderson

KM: Well, I know this panel is just on the retail side, and part of the proposition being proposed by the DAs has the drug side. And so I’m a firm believer that we need to have treatment for individuals. And if you don’t get treatment, go to diversion needs to be some accountability. I don’t think state prison is the place. I think, you know, shorter term and county jail many times is just a flash for individuals to realize, “oh, there’s a consequence for me not taking this step for the betterment of my life and frankly, our community.” So yeah, I think there needs to be a little bit of teeth in that. And that’s a big piece of the puzzle.

EH: Lenore. Any thoughts?

LA: Just a couple of thoughts. One is that there are a range of options under existing law. So enforcing existing law is an opportunity to hold people accountable who are continuing to commit crimes.

Aggregation is an example of that where you.. where if someone is committing multiple low level offenses,  the amount that they’ve stolen had can be combined together to go above the, the felony threshold.

There are other examples, I think we heard from the L.A. DA’s office about other examples of using and enforcing existing law to ensure that you hold people accountable. The other, you know, thing that I think is really important to, to understand is, you know, in general, best practice to holding people accountable: We all believe in accountability. We all believe in safety. We all believe in accountability. The question is how to get there, right?  And what’s the most effective way to get there?

When we look at best practices and holding people accountable, it’s not the severity of the offense that reduces the likelihood that someone would commit a crime. It’s the swiftness of the consequence.

We’ve built a justice system that swift isn’t a word associated with our criminal justice system all that much. Okay? This is a set of big bureaucracies that move quite slow oftentimes because we have such severe consequences in the felony category. These cases can take multiple months, sometimes even louder than that. In some of the urban environments, you see cases that, you know, it’s 30 days, 45 days at the earliest before you’re even required to come in on a citation.

If we could speed up and make more efficient, so that there’s a swiftness of consequence, you’re going to have better outcomes. There have been examples of pilot programs that have been demonstrated in the misdemeanor-only context, where if you have someone who’s cited for a misdemeanor, required to go to court within five days. They show up. When they get in front of a judge, they can be held accountable that quick. That is going to be more likely to reduce someone’s recidivism than just the severity of the consequence.

Those kinds of bureaucratic red tape barriers to a swift and certain justice system don’t get very much attention in these conversations, but they deserve it. Because if we can improve how our criminal justice system functions, we’re going to be able to focus more on the very small percentage of people who are engaged in repeat offending. We’re going to be able to hold them accountable, and we’re going to be able to save a whole bunch of money for the programs that make the most difference at the neighborhood level for safety.

JC: You cannot aggregate theft, though. You cannot combine theft. If you can do that, we do it right now. So on your day in and day out offender, if we can combine the totals, that wouldn’t be an issue. So under 47 you can go steal less than $950, 20 times in a day and not go to jail. It’s a citation. So you cannot combine theft. That’s per leg council and a court ruling. Cannot be done.

EH: Famous last words. Thank you, Sheriff. So we are now going to open it up to general questions.

Lt. DIANE GOLDSTEIN: Hi. This is actually for Sheriff Cooper. I had a career in law enforcement. I spent almost 22 years in law enforcement. And there’s two things that I think that you talk about that that I have concerns with, That sound fairly rhetorical to me. And it’s there has been declining clearance rates going back to the 1990s, to now in law enforcement effectiveness. Yet we have 43,000 more police officers than when I policed.

And I ran a surveillance unit, a narcotics unit. We worked career criminals like this. This smash and grab isn’t something new. We had Nordstrom’s, we followed people. Part of this issue is law enforcement isn’t either being trained properly, or are not doing their jobs. There are ways to prove intent. If you have a person that you’re following and who’s going to nine different places, like you say, you can establish intent and file a felony case. I just think that so much of this is based on an easy excuse to basically place blame on Proposition 47 when you have less… Our clearance rates are like 7% for property crime. It’s outrageous.

JC: Ours are higher than that for a lot of our things. And I think the big issue with this is, is things have changed so much. And it’s calls for service. You have calls, you go to, you don’t have the resources to follow somebody around. Detectives, child abuse, cut in half. So the caseloads they are carrying right now are immensely higher than they were before. That’s the difference.

I’ve been in 32 years now. I was in the legislature. So there’s a different ball game than what you were dealing with. Law enforcement is still reeling from cuts from the recession, ’08-‘09. And that’s an issue we have with that, trying to get the resources and to follow someone around for retail theft… You have violent crime. You have a lot of more serious stuff you’re following.

So on the pendulum, it’s important. But there are more important things we’re dealing with. And it’s a matter of resources when it comes down to it. I’ve seen it on both ends, as the head of an agency, not just a rank and file, as a lead, and as a legislator. So I bring more experience than anyone in the legislature, in this state, on the issue when talking about this. And I ran a proposition, I thought… Mark Zuckerberg put in 4 million owner Netflix, his wife put in 4 million against Prop. 20. So when I talk about it, I don’t talk about it flippantly. I talk about it with knowledge. So it’s a very different law enforcement than when you were there. The clearance rates are high.

CAPITOL WEEKLY: We have one right over here, please.

EH: Oh, and if you don’t mind introducing yourself. Yes. Thank you so much.

JENNA ABBOT: Absolutely. Hello, my name is Jenna Abbott. I’m with the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, but I actually want to bring it down to a more personal level. I live in Midtown, Sacramento. I shop at the Safeway at 15th and between R and S. Six months ago, my Safeway was the Wild West. People were walking out every day. I couldn’t get a grocery cart as a shopper.

They would not give me a cart because so many carts were going missing. When I finally was able to get a cart and fill it with groceries, I couldn’t get the cart out of the store because there’s a pole on the cart stopping me from getting out. I asked the security guard, “how do I get my groceries?” You know, I’ve shopped for the week to my car. What he said was “just unload them, put them in the front of the store and pull your car around and you can load your groceries in there.” And I said, “have you seen the front of your store? There’s no way. There’s no way.” Fast forward six months. My Safeway is now full of armed security guards.

I don’t know which one is worse. As a shopper, what I do know is I can get a cart now, but there’s only one entrance. There’s only one exit. My store shelves are pretty empty.

“The American retail experience is going to change. And that’s an ugly answer. It’s unfair, but retailers cannot outsource their security to law enforcement. We simply don’t have the numbers” – Marc Beaart

I guess what I would like to ask from this panel is, when am I going to go back to a regular grocery store that I can just grocery shop in, where I’m not looking at an armed security guard, nor am I looking at someone who is walking out of the store with a cart full of groceries, laughing at the clerk, who’s like, I can’t do anything about that.

PANEL 3 – THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF PROP. 47. Marc Beaart, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. Photo by Joha Harrison, Capitol Weekly

So I applaud you for your bravery of coming here today and talking about all this. You know, I like to think I have a little bit of a grasp on the issues. The Chamber is leaning into a retail theft… retail crime task force, because it’s not just me. It’s other people in this room who are probably feeling the same thing. But I’m I can only speak for myself today, and I would like to see some changes. I don’t know what they look like. I’m encouraged to hear that this is a push and pull. I’m discouraged to hear that it is taking so much money being put into gathering ballot measures to actually have something done in the legislature. So I don’t know what the answer is, but I just wanted you to know what it feels right when you live in Midtown and shop at a midtown grocery store.

EH: I just want to quickly say before our panelists answer that I used to shop at that Safeway as well, and I can corroborate everything you said in terms of, yeah the carts not being able to go in and out, the guards that appear at the gates. Yeah. So but yeah, would love to hear all of your thoughts on her question her comment.

MB: Well, I’ll give you the ugly answer. The American retail experience is going to change. And that’s an ugly answer. It’s unfair, but retailers cannot outsource their security to law enforcement. We simply don’t have the numbers.

They’re going to have to change and reduce the entrance and exit to their store, such as Best Buy and Costco. They’re going to have someone in the front of the store. They’re going to have personnel in the front. They’re going to have more personnel walking the store. And you’re going to see some things that are exclusive. Such as Target right now, is mandating, well, they’re not mandating… and you they’re making it that they want to know exactly who’s at their cash register by being a member. And the loyalty card is only going to expand.

You’re going to see stores within a store. If you want to buy expensive purses at a high end department store, you’re literally going to walk through a vestibule in a store in the center of the store. You see this in other countries. And I know it’s wrong, but that’s what we’re going to see in America.

The only hope is that all these programs that are transitional, that can help the impoverished, the mental health issues and all the issues that we have that can lower crime in the long run are successful. But in that transition, your retail experience is going to be different.

CW: I think what she’s saying is you can certainly understand how that’s… can be perceived as a pretty unacceptable thing for people to have to deal with.

JB: Right. I’m trying to spend my money in the city that I live in and the region that I live in. And I’m trying to protect the retailers that are members of the Metro Chamber. And I don’t want to shop online. I want to shop at my Safeway. So, you know, whatever you can do.

JC: I think you I think you limit ingress and egress, obviously in a store there’s two ways in and two ways out. You’re limiting if you have a fire or something and or an active shooter. That’s the issue with that. It is not okay that we’re doing this. Actually, the majority of the public does not engage in this behavior. So we’re doing this for a certain segment, to make it okay. That is not okay. It’s like all the stuff we’re making these changes, okay. It’s going to be okay. That is not acceptable. We have to change it.

It’s ten years of Prop. 47. And like I said, I keep going back to again and again and again. What happened? Why is it so big this year? Because people are fed up. The public’s fed up. It’s like people need to wake up. They want change. They don’t need drastic change. But change it where you don’t incentivize it. Disincentivize someone going in and stealing it. Disincentivize that, “hey, you’re going to be held accountable. You’re going to be in trouble, “that’s all. If you got a drug problem, let’s get you cleaned up, get you fixed up. I believe in that. But if you’re doing it just because you can, let’s deal with them.

“120 of my lawmakers have these stories throughout their districts, and some people’s appetite for reform is greater than others” – Asm. Kevin McCarty

Let’s hold them accountable. It has to happen, because this is this is not fair to us. Our kids see this day in and day out. What are we saying for our kids, our next generation? It is not okay with this. It has got to change and I believe this is the way to go. But it came to this. It is basically…  the legislature has a gun to their head right now. That’s the only reason we’re having this conversation. And the money came in from a wide variety of sources to help fund the initiative.

So something has to change and we should have had discussions before. But with the makeup of the Assembly, you couldn’t have discussions and really have a robust talk about bills. And that’s what that’s what it’s come down to.

That human trafficking bill passed here. Shannon Grove, a Republican in a supermajority Democratic controlled state. Why did her bill pass? Human Trafficking of a kid. That’s a no brainer. That’s a “duh.” Because it couldn’t get in the legislature, and it finally got through last year, from a Republican. That is very telling. People have to wake up.

CW: We need to wrap this up. So if anyone has a final word, a brief final word. Yeah. Please do.

KM: Just that the reason we’re here on the Conference on Crime today by Capitol Weekly, to give you another plug. This is a big issue. So smaller politics, locally, I know the store. I’ve been tasked at night to go home and buy stuff on the way home. That Safeway. I’ve seen it firsthand.

But it’s not just me – 120 of my lawmakers have these stories throughout their districts, and some people’s appetite for reform is greater than others. You know, I’m looking for reform. My definition of reform is probably not as great as Sheriff Cooper’s, but there is a desire to not just noodle around the edges and have a significant response this year. So I think that we will see more action on this and not overcorrection. I think that we need to have, you know, a balanced approach. And this is an issue that will be addressed this year in the state legislature in the state of California.

LA: And I would just add that you know, we all want to see solutions, and we all want to see action taken such that every day people can have safe experiences when they’re shopping and when they’re in their communities and in their homes. The question is just what are the solutions? This is a debate about what the solutions are, not about whether or not we need it.

We all deserve safety. The question is really just how to get there. You know, my organization, in addition to working in California, we work in seven other states in the country. And the topic in those other states is retail theft. The topic is shifts in the way that stores are stacking product and the ways in which ingress and egress are changing. These are national conversations. That means that we have to look deeper at what the solutions are and if we can get to smarter, more effective uses of our criminal justice resources and much more investment in community safety at the neighborhood level, then that’s where we’re going to get to in terms of the best solutions for the state.

CW: Well, I know we could keep going on. Like I said, this is a little minor topic that no one else is talking about. Clearly, I kid, of course. Thank you all for being here today. This is a very important topic. Our panel. Emily, thank you for great presentation.

Thanks to our Conference on Crime sponsors: THE TRIBAL ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS, WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA; KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PERRY COMMUNICATIONS, CAPITOL ADVOCACY, THE WEIDEMAN GROUP, LANG, HANSEN, GIROUX & KIDANE and CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS