Are California Democrats actively trying to make themselves irrelevant?

San Francisco Chronicle​

02-05-2025

Are California Democrats trying to make themselves irrelevant?
They must be — because it's getting increasingly difficult to come up with rational explanations for the self-sabotaging actions they're taking in the state Legislature.
After a month that saw prominent state Democratic leaders take absurd stances on bills to improve early childhood literacy and housing availability, state Assembly members on Thursday argued for more than an hour about whether it should be a felony to purchase 16- and 17-year-olds for sex.
Their ultimate conclusion: We'll think about it — but probably not.
Assembly Democrats overwhelmingly voted to strip AB379 by Assembly Member Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, of its key provision — to toughen penalties for offenders convicted of purchasing 16- and 17-year-olds for sex to match the punishments for those convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger.
Instead, they inserted an amendment stating that 'It is the intent of the Legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims and strengthen protections in support of victims of human trafficking.' Krell's name, along with those of nearly two dozen co-authors, were also wiped from the bill and replaced with two new authors: Assembly Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz, D-Burbank, and Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove.
The irony, of course, is that keeping Krell's bill intact would have been the strongest protection for 16- and 17-year-old victims.
Krell knows what she's talking about: As a former prosecutor in the California Department of Justice, she helped bring down Backpage, one of the largest sex trafficking websites in the world.
Democrats' refusal to back her effort forced Gov. Gavin Newsom to take a break from podcasting and issue a stern statement: 'The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim's age.'
Why are the consequences for those who try to purchase sex from 16- or 17-year-olds different from other minors in the first place?
Last year, state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, introduced a bill to require child sex buyers to face felony charges. At the time, offenders faced only misdemeanor charges — a maximum of one year in jail and a potential $10,000 fine.
Grove was fresh off a massive political victory over Democrats: In 2023, the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed her bill to classify human trafficking of minors as a 'serious' felony, arguing that offenders already faced potentially lengthy sentences. This tone-deaf reasoning sparked immediate backlash and a swift intervention from Newsom and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, and Grove's bill was revived and signed into law.
But Democrats in the Senate Public Safety Committee balked at Grove's new bill, suggesting it could lead to teenagers being punished for having sex with each other or be weaponized against LGBT people. Over Grove's objections, they amended the bill to loosen protections for 16- and 17-year-olds. Under the revised bill, which Newsom signed into law, people convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger for sex could face either misdemeanor or felony charges on the first offense and felony charges on the second offense. But those protections would only apply to 16- and 17-year-olds if they could prove they were victims of human trafficking.
This carveout was a political compromise, but it made little logical or moral sense. As Krell emphasized in passionate comments Thursday, 'There is no such thing as a child prostitute.' She noted that under federal law, 'You're automatically a victim of human trafficking if you're under 18 and bought for sex. … Sex without consent, that's rape. The exchange of money doesn't change that.'
But, once again, Democrats are contorting themselves into rhetorical pretzels to defend the indefensible.
'This bill with the amendments sends a clear message to every 16- and 17-year-old who has been caught in the nightmare of human trafficking — you are not invisible, you are not alone, and we will fight for you,' proclaimed Assembly Member Mark González, D-Los Angeles.
The amendments sent a message, all right — that purchasing a 16- or 17-year-old for sex isn't as bad as purchasing other underage victims.
Meanwhile, Assembly Member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, chastised Republican lawmakers for their 'selective outrage,' noting that President Donald Trump sought to appoint former Rep. Matt Gaetz — who was found likely to have engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl — as his attorney general.
Yet Berman's argument undermined his own stance: By refusing to support Krell's bill in its original form, he was effectively arguing that people who purchase 17-year-old prostitution victims shouldn't face as severe of penalties. His view would give the Matt Gaetz's of the world a pass.
Schultz, meanwhile, slammed the Assembly for 'playing politics' with the bill. After the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday voted to pass Krell's bill after once again carving out older teenagers, Republicans — sensing blood in the water — said they would force a floor vote on the issue Thursday, and Krell defied Assembly leadership by announcing she planned to vote with Republicans. This infuriated Rivas and Schultz, who said Krell had agreed to accept the committee's revisions.
But what the Democratic caucus sees as political insubordination, average Californians are likely to see as a righteous battle.
'Somehow, as the president tanks our economy and deports innocent children, the American people still don't trust Democrats,' said Assembly Member Jasmeet Bains, D-Bakersfield. 'Any sane person knows that purchasing a 16- or 17-year-old for sex should be a felony, not a misdemeanor. This should not be a debate.'
But even Newsom's intervention couldn't save Krell's bill Thursday — 56 Assembly Democrats voted to move the bill forward with Schultz' and Nguyen's amendments. Republicans were joined by just three Democrats in voting against the amendments: Krell, Bains and Assembly Member Joaquin Arambula, D-Fresno.
Ignoring Newsom, a lame-duck governor with just one year left in his term, is one thing. But clinging to nonsensical arguments in defense of bad policy is another.
Rather than admit they're wrong, far too many Democrats seem perfectly happy to sanctimoniously dig the party's political grave.
Reach Emily Hoeven: [e-mail]; X: @emily_hoeven