What to know about California's fight over harsher penalties for soliciting sex from older teens
A debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying sex from 16- and 17-year-olds exploded in the California Legislature this week.
Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who solicit older minors for sex. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ+ relationships to target older teens involved in relationships.
The issue came to a head Thursday after Republicans in the Assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the issue.
Here's what to know:
How does current law protect 16- and 17-year-olds?
Under current law, contacting a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity in California is a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor and engaging in sex with a minor if the age gap between the parties is more than three years.
It's also a 'serious' crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three "serious" felonies in California faces a sentence of between 25 years and life in prison under the 'three strikes law.'
'California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat.
What changes are proposed?
Those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in bipartisan legislation on sex trafficking signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. The law, which took effect this year, allows prosecutors to charge those who solicit and buy sex from minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place an existing law that limits the penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor.
Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat with a background as a prosecutor, wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children under 18 who are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said.
'If you're 17 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape,' Krell said. 'That should be treated as a felony.'
Why do some Democrats oppose the change?
Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell's bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit and buy sex from older teens. They agreed with Krell's goal but worried the approach could have unintended consequences.
Leigh LaChapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16- and 17-year-olds who are in relationships with other minors.
'They are worried about the way that the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships," LaChapelle said.
During Thursday's legislative debate, Democrats said it's important to give prosecutors the discretion to decide on penalties in these cases.
Newsom, first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis criticized the committee's actions.
'The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim's age. Full stop,' Newsom's office said in a statement. He rarely comments on pending legislation.
What happens next?
Several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party Thursday to vote with Republicans. Democrats instead backed an amendment saying they plan to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.'
Assemblymember Nick Schultz, who chairs the public safety committee, said he's committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue forward this year.
'We will have a solution,' Schultz said. 'That's my commitment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
Rally for LGBTQ+ rights to convene at historic site in Washington
WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) - LGBTQ+ people will gather on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, site of Martin Luther King's 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech, for a political rally aimed at preserving decades of progress while protesting setbacks under President Donald Trump. After the festive nature of a parade on Saturday through the streets of the capital, the political demonstration may be the main event of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration, which moves around the globe every two years. It occurs in Washington at a time of high tension over LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S. Speakers are certain to rail against Trump, who has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banned transgender people from serving in the armed forces and rescinded anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people. The White House has defended its dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, calling DEI a form of discrimination, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. The Trump administration has also touted its appointment of a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts and judgeships as evidence that Trump aims to serve all Americans. Before the main rally, transgender supporters will hold their own march to protest Trump's rhetoric and myriad state laws around the country that ban transgender healthcare services for minors. Backers of those laws say they are attempting to protect minors from starting on a path they may later regret. The transgender rally will march from the offices of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ organization in the U.S., toward the Lincoln Memorial, which is considered hallowed ground in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of the King speech and the March on Washington that preceded historic legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's travel ban on 12 countries goes into effect early Monday
WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's order banning citizens of 12 countries from entering the United States goes into effect at 12:01 am ET (0401 GMT) on Monday, a move the president promulgated to protect the country from "foreign terrorists." The countries affected by the latest travel ban are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - will be partially restricted. Trump, a Republican, said the countries subject to the most severe restrictions were determined to harbor a "large-scale presence of terrorists," fail to cooperate on visa security, have an inability to verify travelers' identities, as well as inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories and high rates of visa overstays in the United States. He cited last Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national tossed a gasoline bomb into a crowd of pro-Israel demonstrators as an example of why the new curbs are needed. But Egypt is not part of the travel ban. The travel ban forms part of Trump's policy to restrict immigration into the United States and is reminiscent of a similar move in his first term when he barred travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations. Officials and residents in countries whose citizens will soon be banned expressed dismay and disbelief. Chad President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno said he had instructed his government to stop granting visas to U.S. citizens in response to Trump's action. "Chad has neither planes to offer nor billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and its pride," he said in a Facebook post, referring to countries such as Qatar, which gifted the U.S. a luxury airplane for Trump's use and promised to invest billions of dollars in the U.S. Afghans who worked for the U.S. or U.S.-funded projects and were hoping to resettle in the U.S. expressed fear that the travel ban would force them to return to their country, where they could face reprisal from the Taliban. Democratic U.S. lawmakers also voiced concern about the policies. "Trump's travel ban on citizens from over 12 countries is draconian and unconstitutional," said U.S. Representative Ro Khanna on social media late on Thursday. "People have a right to seek asylum."
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
