Texas House newcomers champion causes close to home
AUSTIN (KXAN)–The 89th Texas Legislative Session concluded with 31 new state representatives completing their first 140 days in office, representing more than 20% of the House chamber.
Among these freshman lawmakers were Republican Don McLaughlin of District 80 in south Texas and Democrat Lauren Ashley Simmons of District 146 in the Houston area. Each brought distinct backgrounds and legislative priorities to Austin. The freshman class emerged from elections that shifted the House composition to 88 Republicans and 62 Democrats, with Republicans gaining two additional seats.
McLaughlin, who previously served as mayor of Uvalde during the tragic 2022 school shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers, focused his legislative efforts on improving law enforcement response protocols. His signature legislation, the Uvalde Strong Act, passed both chambers and awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature.
'What I see in this bill, more than anything, is if an agency shows up, all these agencies have been training together, supposed to be meeting together now, so if the first agency on the scene does nothing, the second agency immediately knows what to do, then we won't have that chaos and that indecision that we saw that day at Uvalde,' McLaughlin said in an interview with KXAN's Will DuPree shortly after the session ended.
The legislation would mandate annual training exercises between school districts and law enforcement agencies, require crisis response policies and establish reporting requirements for active shooter incidents.
McLaughlin acknowledged the painful necessity behind his legislation. 'It's very meaningful. I'm ecstatic over but same token, I'm sad that we had to pass a law like this,' he said.
On the Democratic side, Simmons was recognized by her colleagues as Freshman of the Year within the House Democratic Caucus. Despite serving in the minority party, she successfully advanced multiple pieces of legislation, with at least 11 bills bearing her name awaiting the governor's signature and five additional measures she co-authored or co-sponsored set to become law.
Her most personal legislative achievement was House Bill 107, which would establish a Sickle Cell Disease Registry in Texas. The measure represents a personal fight for the Houston Democrat.
'My daughter has sickle cell disease. That was a bill I watched very closely. I was in tears when it did not become law, but I just couldn't. I had no idea that I would be in the legislature, and I would be that person that was able to bring that bill back,' Simmons said in an interview with KXAN's Will Dupree.
The legislation represents a second attempt after a similar measure was vetoed by Abbott in 2023. Simmons worked to address the governor's previous concerns while maintaining the bill's core purpose.
'We made sure that we address the concerns that came from the governor's office, and so we are very confident with those you know, updates to that bill,' she said.
Both lawmakers expressed exhaustion but satisfaction with their first legislative experience. McLaughlin highlighted additional accomplishments including judicial pay raises, bail reform measures and infrastructure improvements for economically distressed border communities in his district.
'You know, I think it was good. I think we had a really good session. You know, did we please everybody? Probably not, but I think we got a lot of good things done for the state of Texas in this session,' McLaughlin said.
Simmons emphasized the magnitude of conducting state business for Texas, the nation's second-largest state by both population and economy, within the constraints of a biennial 140-day session.
'Being able to see how much work we're able to do, all the things that we're able to do for not just our individual districts that we represent, but for the millions of people in this state. It's such an honor. It's a heavy task. It's a heavy lift,' she said.
The freshman class faced the challenge of learning legislative procedures while advancing their policy priorities. Simmons noted the complexity of the process, saying she 'gained a lot of respect for the process when you see just how many ways a bill can die.'
As the session concluded, both representatives expressed commitment to continued advocacy for their constituents. McLaughlin indicated he would closely monitor the governor's action on the Uvalde Strong Act, while Simmons vowed to maintain her opposition to the state takeover of Houston Independent School District, which was extended through 2027.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen' move that would have helped his election case
In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly's spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago. Harmon's move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker's upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote. The Oak Park Democrat's maneuver, characterized by critics as 'brazen' and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard. Blowback to Harmon's action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results. 'This is a terrible look,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. 'I don't recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.' But in an interview with the Tribune, Harmon repeatedly maintained his effort was justified and disputed criticism that it was self-serving. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker — who previously said former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's February conviction was a 'vital reminder that we must maintain our vigilance in cleaning up government' — also defended Harmon and said their political party takes ethics seriously. Still, Harmon's activity is reflective of a political culture in Springfield where officials talk a good game about the importance of ethics in government but routinely stop short of adopting robust laws governing their conduct. After a legislative session that ended last weekend with lawmakers never advancing significant ethics bills, Democratic House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside maintained that such legislation 'remains a top priority' for him. He pointed to ethics proposals approved during his first year as speaker in 2021 after Madigan was ousted while federal investigators were closing in. Welch said current 'ethics laws and the laws of the state of Illinois worked' in Madigan's case — though his predecessor was charged and convicted under federal, not state, law. 'The system worked. We don't need to rush and react. We need to take our time and get things right. We don't need to react to headlines,' he said. 'We need to make sure things get properly vetted, that the House, the Senate and the governor's office can all come to agreement on these things, and we're committed to doing that.' Madigan, 83, once the state's most powerful politician, faces sentencing Friday after being convicted Feb. 12 by a jury on federal bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges that alleged he used his office to enhance his power, line his pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. But pieces of the post-Madigan changes that Welch points to still draw criticism because they are weaker at holding lawmakers in Illinois accountable than laws in other states. In particular, a revolving-door clause only requires lawmakers to wait a maximum of six months to become a lobbyist if they leave office in the middle of their term. And, if they complete their term in office, they can start as a lobbyist the next day. Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, the top Republican on the House Ethics & Elections Committee, said the lack of substantive action on ethics this spring should make it 'clear to any objective observer — any observer, really, of the state government — that the Democratic majority does not care about ethics reform, does not believe we need ethics reform and is not going to take serious action to enact ethics reform.' Rep. Maurice West, the Rockford Democrat who chairs the House committee on ethics, said his panel never held hearings on major ethics proposals during the spring session because there was no agreement with Senate Democrats to advance any bill. During the session, West repeatedly said the committee was set to meet to take testimony on proposed ethics changes. 'That was my expectation and hope, that there was going to be a robust conversation on ethics, but I also knew that I had to go through a process. This had to be agreed upon in both chambers to ensure … that we can get it signed into law,' West said. 'And if there's not an agreement, then it's an automatic brick.' After lawmakers adjourned, a spokesperson for Pritzker referred questions about proposed ethics laws to West, who said he had a brief conversation with the governor toward the end of the session about 'how we can partner … and collaborate on ethics over the summer.' 'That's all I have to say when it comes to the governor,' West said, declining to elaborate on any specific proposals. Cassidy, the House Democrat, said it may be time to take up each proposal on its own merits rather than jam them into one bill that requires Democrats in both chambers to agree before a vote is taken on ethics, elections and campaign finance matters. 'I just wonder if maybe we should rethink that,' she said. While any legislative movement on ethics languished in Springfield, Harmon, on the final scheduled day of the session, attempted to statutorily quash his case before the State Board of Elections, which acted following a Tribune review and inquiry about political contributions Harmon received last year. Elections board officials in March informed the Senate president that he had improperly accepted nearly $4.1 million in contributions exceeding the allowed campaign finance limits, and they threatened to levy a substantial fine. Harmon has filed an appeal and said he 'fully complied with the law.' At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. Originally described as a method allowing a candidate to compete against a wealthy self-funded opponent or to counter a well-funded opposing group's independent expenditures, the loophole has instead become a way for candidates — even if they face no opposition — to accept unlimited contributions by purposely breaking the limits themselves. Harmon, who sponsored the earlier law, has repeatedly done that himself, giving or loaning his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — to trigger the so-called 'money bomb' loophole. Harmon did it again for the 2024 campaign season when, in January 2023, he gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 even though he was not running for office last year. While members of the Illinois House are up for election every two years, state Senate seats have one two-year term and two four-year terms every 10 years. In paperwork filed with the state elections board, Harmon indicated the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election. However, board officials informed him that the loophole would be closed after the March 2024 primary. Still, from the March 2024 primary through the end of that year, state records showed his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly half of which the state board has now said was over the campaign contribution limits. In appealing the board's case, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund. Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the elections board, he could end up paying no penalty. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law.' But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not the elections board officials'. 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same,' Harmon told the Tribune. 'The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' When pressed on the political optics of his move, Harmon said the new clause 'was just intended to call attention' to differences in the way the board addresses House and Senate candidates. 'We'll revisit the bill after we win the case,' Harmon said, adding, 'We're going to proceed with the case under the law as written.' Welch acknowledged it was a backlash among his House Democrats over the Harmon-backed provision that resulted in the overall bill never advancing. 'I did inform (Harmon) after our caucus that we didn't have support for that, and if a bill came over with that in it, we would not take it,' Welch told the Tribune. Good-government advocates, stymied on key proposals again this spring, were taken aback when the Harmon clause appeared late in the session. 'I thought I'd seen everything, but I was shocked to see it in the bill,' said Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois. 'It clearly would have changed the law, but it was framed as just a clarification of existing rules so it would apply retroactively to Harmon's case. And it was buried in an enormous omnibus bill … at the last possible minute to minimize discussion. 'Just a breathtakingly cynical use of legal language and procedure,' Kaplan said, adding: 'It's bad enough that legislative leaders regularly abuse the self-funding loophole. We should be closing the loophole, not blowing it wide open for even more opportunities for pay-to-play politics and corruption.' The two-sentence clause Harmon backed would have generally expanded the period that a senator in a four-year term who breaks the caps can keep them off. But the second sentence in the Harmon clause caused the uproar on both sides of the aisle: 'This amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly is declarative of existing law,' phrasing many lawmakers interpreted to mean that, if passed, could have eliminated Harmon's election board dispute. Sen. Jil Tracy, a Quincy Republican, called the clause 'mind-blowing.' 'The language was brazen,' she said. 'My initial reaction was shock. I couldn't believe the majority would be that brazen.' She said she learned of the clause in the waning hours of the legislative session when a legal staffer told her the proposal would erase Harmon's case before the board. 'That bill would have condoned and made it appropriate to go beyond what the election code allows and to supersede the limits and create a path (to) interpret what President Harmon had done was OK,' said Tracy, a former assistant attorney general who served under both former Republican Jim Ryan and Democrat Lisa Madigan, the former speaker's daughter. 'He still argues what he did was OK, but why do a bill?' asked Tracy, a member of a Senate subcommittee on ethics. At an unrelated appearance in West Chicago on Thursday, Pritzker sought to vouch for Harmon while he said that he and his fellow Democrats in Springfield have sought to clean up a state with a culture of corruption. 'I know that the Senate president doesn't have any intention other than to make the law better,' he said. At the same time, the governor acknowledged he didn't 'know enough about the violations that have been alleged.' Another provision that raised eyebrows in the Harmon-backed legislation would have allowed statewide elected officials and state lawmakers running for federal offices to hold fundraisers on session days and the day before, as long as they're held outside of Sangamon County, which includes Springfield. A statewide ban on such fundraisers was a provision in the 2021 ethics law touted by Pritzker and other top Democrats. The new provision would have benefited Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, Pritzker's two-time running mate who's running for U.S. Senate, and a handful of state legislators who've declared their candidacies for the U.S. House. The candidates also would have been able to transfer money raised on session days for their federal campaigns into their state accounts, as long as they adhered to state contribution limits. Welch, Harmon and Pritzker's office all said they didn't know the origin of the language, which was presented in a brief committee hearing late on the final day of session as an attempt to align state law with rules governing fundraising for federal candidates. But West, giving the overall package its only public airing, couldn't explain how leaving a restriction in place only for Springfield's home county would pass legal muster. There was a feeling that it would be more ethical to keep in-session political fundraisers 'as far away from the state Capitol as possible,' West said. But Rep. Carol Ammons, an Urbana Democrat, called the provision problematic, saying: 'I don't know what difference it makes what county you're in. If you're fundraising while we're in session, you're fundraising while we're in session.' Chicago Tribune's Jeremy Gorner and Addison Wright contributed.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated "R" for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "I have a [expletive deleted] dream." Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Read more: Barabak: Yelling, finger-pointing and cursing galore as California Democrats gather near Disneyland Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand "toxic." Walz told his fellow Dems: "We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing." It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: "A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study." Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Read more: Chabria: California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers "win elections because their opponents were unpopular," Levin wrote, "and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular." It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy "maybe" period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Read more: Barabak: Gavin Newsom has lots to say. Is it worth listening? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
A California lawmaker blames the attention on the Menendez brothers' case for prompting a bill to resurface that could put thousands of killers back on the streets. "California Democrats just opened the prison gates for over 1,600 cold-blooded killers," Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, a Republican, shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. "Democrat lawmakers have proven time and time again they don't care about the victim or their family. They don't care about keeping the public safe. They care about defending killers." Jones added what makes this move even more interesting was the timing of it. Gov. Newsom Doing 'Political Calculus' Ahead Of Menendez Brothers Resentencing Decision "As soon as the Menendez brothers' situation started trending, all of a sudden this bill comes up again," Jones said. "And it's really a very kind of cynical effort to get caught up in that wave of social media, media attention, the press cycle for building somebody's name. ... So, we're opposed to this bill. Read On The Fox News App "It's a shameless attempt to ride a wave of social media sympathy with zero regard for the thousands of other brutal killers their bill could unleash." Jones said, unlike some of his Democratic counterparts, Republicans in California and the Senate are committed to keeping Californians safe. "And the way we do that is by keeping these violent felons locked up in prison where they belong," Jones said. "Dangerous Democrats are playing politics with public safety." Jones said the move to resentence Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were serving life in prison without parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, was not the right action to take. "It's pretty straightforward to me. These people were convicted of very heinous murders with a sentence of life without parole. And for us to go back on that sentencing now and then the victims to be re-victimized, the families of the murdered, to have to continuously relive this is unconscionable to me," Jones explained. Jones added what doesn't make sense in all this is Gov. Gavin Newsom's Democratic Party continues to push to protect perpetrators instead of victims and using the Menendez brothers' case to get their bill across the finish line. Menendez Brothers Could Get Freedom Under California Law Signed By Gavin Newsom: Expert "I think the legislators from LA are taking advantage of that news cycle and the social media attention that is coming from this. They think they're gonna get some Hollywood stars to come up to Sacramento and testify on this bill to promote it. I don't think that's going to happen," Jones explained. Jones was speaking about SB 672, also known as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, which is a California bill that would allow individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 26 to request a parole hearing after serving at least 25 years. The state Senate passed SB 672 Tuesday by a 24-11 vote. The proposal now heads to the Assembly. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio, was amended to exclude criminals convicted of certain offenses the chance to seek parole, including those who killed a law enforcement officer or carried out a mass shooting at a school, among other offenses. "Sacramento's love affair with criminals doesn't seem to be letting up, even after 70% of Californians made it clear they wanted lawmakers to crack down on crime. Now, the state Senate is trying to let convicted murderers out of jail early," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for California governor, shared in a statement after the bill's passage in the Senate. "It's also amazing that once the Menendez brothers found a way to apply for parole, the legislators here still doubled down and continued to push the bill through," Jones added. "And, again, it goes back to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California protecting perpetrators and ignoring victims." The previous bill, SB 94, would have given certain inmates serving life without parole a chance to petition to have sentences reviewed if crimes were committed before June 5, 1990, but it stalled in the legislature and did not move forward. Newsom's office told Fox News Digital it typically does not comment on pending legislation. Rubio's office told Fox News Digital she is "disappointed" some lawmakers are sharing false information. "It is unfortunate that the bill has been grossly misrepresented. I am disappointed that my friends from the other side of the aisle continue to peddle misinformation when, out of respect for them, I went over in detail what the bill does and does not do. I invited them to give me input, and the invitation is still open," Rubio's office shared in a statement. During Erik and Lyle Menendez's resentencing hearing last month, both shared emotional testimony, admitting "full responsibility" for their parents' murders after a bombshell decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to resentence them. The resentencing hearing came after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings followed the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. "There's all kinds of special circumstances, that's what a lot of these murders are called, special circumstances that, really, these people don't deserve to ever be out of prison," Jones said. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said "justice should never be swayed by spectacle" after the judge's decision. "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison but are now eligible for parole. They have a parole board hearing scheduled for August. Freedom For The Menendez Brothers Might Come From A Surprising Source. And This Could Be Next Jones said the Menendez brothers are "getting special attention by the media and the Democrat leadership, who are really out of touch with everyday Californians." "Look, promoting this and pushing this idea is opening a Pandora's box for 1,600 other special circumstance murderers that are in prison right now, and I just can't support moving in a direction that allows so many of those people out on parole," Jones said. "I would argue if (the Menendez brothers) are truly rehabilitated, which I have some doubts about that, but if they are, then maybe the best place for them is in prison, where they can mentor and help other people that are coming into the prison system to get their lives turned around too." Jones added that releasing Erik and Lyle Menendez is not a risk he is willing to get behind. "As a society, do we want to really take the risk of letting these two out or any of the other 1,600 special circumstance murders that we don't know by name but are in prison for the same sentence? Do we really want to roll the dice and take the risk of allowing these people out and having the opportunity for any more victims in California? And I think the answer is a resounding no," Jones said. Fox News Digital's Bradford Betz, Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, and Landon Mion contributed to this report. Original article source: California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
