Latest news with #Krell
San Francisco Chronicle
10-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Dems keep using the same plan for political failure. Are they done being embarrassed?
Over the past several years, Democrats in the California Legislature seem to have developed a bizarre, five-point political playbook that goes something like this: Take a highly unpopular stance that's almost impossible to defend or coherently explain to average voters and residents. Face severe public pushback. Double down on that stance. Face even more severe public pushback. Battered and humiliated, reverse course and adopt the very same policy they'd argued so fiercely against. The latest about-face happened Tuesday, when Democratic leaders of the California Assembly backtracked on their opposition to a proposal to strengthen penalties for offenders who purchase 16- and 17-year-olds for sex. Last week, Assembly Democrats overwhelmingly voted to strip AB379, by Assembly Member Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, of its key provision: strengthening punishments to match those for offenders convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger for sex. Democrats then inserted amendments that vaguely promised to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' Of course, the strongest law would have been passing Krell's original bill. Legislative leaders not only didn't do that, but they also ignored strong pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom to do so. Predictably, severe public backlash ensued. Also predictably, Democrats backed down. They now plan to amend AB379 to impose felony penalties for adult offenders convicted of soliciting sex from 16- and 17-year-olds — as long as they're at least three years older than the minor, according to an outline of the deal Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' office shared with me. (If the adult offender is less than three years older than the minor, the crime would still be classified as a misdemeanor.) The bill also creates a state grant program to help district attorneys streamline the prosecution of human trafficking. Krell is also being reinstated as a bill co-author after Assembly Democrats stripped her name from its original version. This bill recognizes what should long have been obvious: that buying minors for sex is an egregious and horrific crime, regardless of whether the kids are 15 or 17. And it takes a far more common-sense approach to resolving some Democrats' concerns that young adults in romantic relationships with minors (i.e., in a high-school relationship) could inadvertently be targeted. So why did legislators expend so much political capital dying on a hill they couldn't defend for more than a week — when a far more rational alternative was readily available? That remains to be seen. It's also unclear if they've learned anything. The state Senate still has to sign off on the bill if it clears the Assembly, where it's scheduled for a hearing Wednesday. Are Democrats ready to get to the serious business of improving outcomes in California? Or will they continue to give Republicans and other critics easy political ammunition to portray them as out-of-touch ideologues? After all, Democrats have been here before. In 2023, the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed a bill authored by state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, to classify human trafficking of minors as a 'serious' felony. The committee's reasoning? Such crimes could already be considered 'serious' if additional offenses had been committed — such as inflicting great bodily injury on the child victim. That absurd rationale sparked immediate backlash and left Democrats in damage control mode. Newsom and Rivas raced to intervene, and Grove's bill was revived and signed into law. Then, in 2024, Democrats embarked on a series of convoluted maneuvers — each more nonsensical than the last — in a failed attempt to head off a proposed November ballot measure to overhaul portions of Proposition 47, the controversial 2014 measure that lightened penalties for some drug and theft crimes. First, Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, floated a mob-like proposal to kill their own public-safety legislative package if voters approved the proposed ballot measure, later dubbed Prop 36. But their nakedly transparent effort to force the measure's proponents to withdraw it from the ballot alienated both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and Rivas and McGuire ultimately sacked the plan. This prompted Newsom to introduce his own last-ditch proposal for a competing ballot measure to reform Prop 47, even though Newsom, Rivas and McGuire had repeatedly said Prop 47 didn't need any changes. Knowing the proposal faced an uphill battle in the Legislature, Newsom proposed manipulating an arcane election procedure to circumvent the two-thirds super majority required to place it on the ballot and instead allow it to be passed with a simple majority. Less than 48 hours later, however, Newsom scrapped the proposal, stating that lawmakers couldn't reach a consensus on proposed amendments by the ballot deadline. To the surprise of absolutely no one who had set foot in California in recent years and had sensed voters' mounting frustrations with crime, Prop 36 passed with more than 68% of the vote. In all of these examples, Democrats have spent significant time, energy and resources fighting against what most Californians clearly view as common sense. In all of these cases, they've been forced to retreat with their tail between their legs. Does anyone know what kind of political strategy this is? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me. Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California Sex Trafficking Fight Erupts Over Punishment for Soliciting Minors
It's rare to see politicians of any stripe fight against sex-trafficking overreach—or any tough-on-crime gestures, really. In California, Democrats have been finding out what happens when you do. After pushing back somewhat against an overly carceral bill targeting prostitution customers, they were tarred by Republicans as having voted "to protect predators" and being "a threat to our kids' safety." It's become "the biggest controversy Sacramento has seen in a while," notes The Sacramento Bee. Now, of course, Democrats are backtracking. Solicitation Law Changes Proposed The bill—an amended version of which passed the California Assembly on May 1—originally came from Sacramento Rep. Maggy Krell, herself a Democrat and a former prosecutor. Krell worked on a failed case against Backpage and then wrote a book about it, so being tough on prostitution is basically her whole shtick now. But Assembly Bill 379, introduced in February, is a bad bill. It would create a new prostitution loitering law—the kind of thing that lets cops target people for merely looking like they might be about to engage in prostitution. And it would institute a mandatory $1,000 "Survivor Support Fund" fine on anyone convicted of solicitation or loitering for solicitation (in addition to any other fines they might get). But those aren't the controversial bits—most lawmakers in the state's Assembly were OK with those parts (alas). The big controversy concerns punishments for soliciting someone aged 16 or 17 for sex. Krell's proposal would amend a law passed last year that treats solicitation of a minor differently based on whether a minor being solicited is over or under age 16. Misdemeanor or Felony? That 2024 law raised potential penalties for solicitation of a minor, moving it from a misdemeanor to a possible felony. But soliciting a minor for prostitution can only be a felony in cases where the offender is over age 18 and the person solicited is under age 16, or under age 18 and proven to be a victim of human trafficking. And even under such circumstances, authorities still have some discretion. The 2024 law made it a "wobbler" offense, with prosecutors and judges able to charge and punish it as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Basically, the 2024 law was an acknowledgement that the broad parameters of the crime here—soliciting someone who is under age 18 for sex—don't tell us everything we need to know about moral culpability. There's a big difference between a 40-year-old man actively soliciting someone he knows to be 14 years old for sex and a 16-year-old soliciting another 16-year-old, for instance. Or between someone soliciting a minor they know is being coerced into prostitution and a 22-year-old soliciting a 17-year-old whom they might reasonably believe to be 18 and acting independently. Under Krell's proposal, any act of solicitation "by a defendant who is 18 years of age or older" could be punished as a felony when the person solicited was a minor (or, as it goes, a cop pretending to be one). An amended version of the bill that passed the Assembly last week would have done away with Krell's proposed changes to the way solicitation of a minor is punished. Republicans, along with Krell and a few Democrats, opposed this amended version, but most Democrats in the state Assembly were on board with the change. "Krell is a former prosecutor, and prosecutors tend to be hammers that see every problem as a nail," suggested Sacramento Bee op-ed writer Robin Epley, noting that the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is opposed to the bill as originally written. Under Krell's version, "a 19- or 20-year-old dating a 16- or 17-year-old" could be charged with a felony for buying a date dinner, since prostitution doesn't require the exchange of money, just anything of value, Epley pointed out. "I believe it would be used as a cudgel to persecute out-groups—including families that disapprove of queer or interracial relationships." "What the Democrats are trying to do here is keep some common sense written into state law so that judges and prosecutors aren't forced to treat every case the same," Epley said. Myths, Mudslinging, and Backpedaling So much for common sense. It seems Democrats are now reversing course, after their pushback received a lot of pushback. "Democratic leaders in the California Assembly announced on Tuesday that…the proposed felony will be added back into AB 379, backpedaling on moves the two made last week," KCRA reported. Their one condition is that "the felony will not apply when the adult offender is within three years of the age of the minor." Conservatives had been quick to portray Democrats as having a soft spot for predators and of not wanting to protect kids. Democrats think "buying minors for sex…isn't that bad" in some circumstances, wrote Zachary Faria at the Washington Examiner—as if nothing counts as being condemned and punished unless it's a felony. Of course, a misdemeanor offense is still a crime, and it will still net you a criminal record and all sorts of consequences. As it stands, someone convicted of solicitation of a minor aged 16 or 17 can be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $10,000. And under the amended version of Krell's bill, they could also be required to pay an additional $1,000 Survivor Fund fine. Funnily enough, those supporting Krell's proposal aren't actually as tough-on-crime as they're purporting to be. Supporters of Krell's version have suggested that it should always be a felony to solicit a minor. But her proposal would have merely made it possible to charge a felony. It would still have left solicitation of a minor—whether the person solicited was over or under age 16—as a wobbler crime capable of being treated as a misdemeanor or a felony. This isn't the only misleading way that Krell's proposal has been portrayed. "We need to say loud and clear that if you're under 18—a child, a minor—that the person who is buying that person should be charged as a felony," said Krell. "Sex without consent is rape. The exchange of money doesn't change that." But the crime of solicitation does not require sex or any physical activity at all to take place. It doesn't even require an actual minor to exist—many, if not most, cases charged involve stings conducted by undercover police pretending to be under age 18. Solicitation is essentially a speech crime, and equating it to rape is false and inflammatory. An adult who offers a minor money for sex and then engages in sex with them can still be charged with unlawful sexual intercourse, lewd acts on a child, or other sex crimes, regardless of how the solicitation law is written. So, Krell's implication that the current solicitation law lets rapists off the hook is unfounded. And unlawful sexual intercourse (a.k.a. statutory rape) in California is also punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Prostitution Pre-Crime Bit Is Bad, Too "Sadly, Sacramento seems to have lost the capacity to have a rational legislative conversation about sex trafficking—or just about anything when it comes to criminal justice," wrote The Sacramento Bee editorial board earlier this week. The explosive, divisive debate over how solicitation of an older teen should be punished has overshadowed any consideration about the loitering for solicitation proposal in A.B. 379. California repealed a similar law in 2022, amid concerns that the bill let law enforcement harass certain types of women—poor, black, transgender, etc.—merely for existing in public spaces. The new prostitution loitering law would, of course, recreate these same kinds of harms, only this time it would be used to target alleged sex customers instead of sex workers. The loitering for solicitation offense has the potential to be a major infringement on due process, since it's essentially a prostitution pre-crime offense. Police can use it to stalk and arrest anyone they say looked like they were getting ready to solicit sex. Any prudence Democrats showed by pushing back against parts of Krell's bill is tempered by their willingness to create a new crime that could be every bit as overreaching and dangerous to civil liberties. To really do the right thing, they should scrap this bill altogether. Instead, it seems that they've decided to cave almost entirely. Follow-Up on OneTaste Trial As the OneTaste trial gets underway this week, a member of Congress is reportedly trying to intervene. "The representative has written to new FBI director Kash Patel," objecting to the way the case was handled by an FBI agent, according to The Daily Mail. The lead FBI investigator on the case against Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz—former executives at the orgasmic meditation company OneTaste—was Special Agent Elliott McGinnis, who is accused by lawyers for Daedone and Cherwitz of a range of misconduct. Read more about McGinnis and the case here. " has seen a letter to FBI director Patel from a Member of Congress – who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a former law enforcement official – 'seeking answers' about the special agent," the Mail reported. The letter shared by the Mail accuses McGinnis of "a pattern of misconduct" and actions that "represent a fundamental corruption of the investigative process and failure of agent accountability." Prosecutors have already had to admit that evidence vetted by the FBI in this case was not authentic, as this newsletter noted in March. "Most disturbing is the systematic effort to transform Netflix-created content into federal evidence," it states. "This isn't just overreach—it's the deliberate fabrication of a criminal case through entertainment media." More Sex & Tech News Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin just signed into law the Consumer Data Protection Act, which "requires social media companies in the Commonwealth to verify the age of users and limit social media use for kids under the age of 16 to one hour per app per day," per ABC 13 News. "While it's unclear how exactly, the apps would block usage after an hour." Age verification and STD treatment bills pass the North Carolina House. A measure that passed the North Carolina House of Representatives yesterday "mandates that social media platforms delete accounts operated by users younger than 14 years old," according to ABC 11 News. "It permits 14- and 15-year-old users to join networks only with expressed parental consent. Websites and phone apps would also be required to implement age verification." Another bill passed by the North Carolina House on Tuesday would disallow minors to consent to treatment for sexually transmitted diseases without parental approval, unless the minors are 16 or older and "the disease can be treated with a prescription with a duration of 10 days or less." The bill would also require parental approval before minors could be treated for alcohol or substance abuse problems or "emotional disturbance." A similar law is under consideration in Florida and was recently passed by the Florida House. RIP Skype. The original Zoom shut down for good on Monday. "The decision to scrap Skype, announced in March, caps a remarkable 21-year run for a software that for many embodied the early values of the open internet," wrote Leo Sands at The Washington Post. "It was mostly free, had a user-friendly interface and made it easier for people to connect across the world. In its heyday, Skype had over 300 million users." Today's Image Los Angeles | 2018 (ENB/Reason) The post California Sex Trafficking Fight Erupts Over Punishment for Soliciting Minors appeared first on
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Chabria: Why California Democrats killed, then resurrected, a bill to crack down on buying teens for sex
Are California Democrats soft when it comes to protecting minors from sex trafficking? It's a question that has caused chaos in the state Capitol for more than a week. But really, it's a question Republicans have been asking — and answering with a resounding yes — for years. At the risk of stating the obvious, I'll let you know that California has some of the toughest laws against sex trafficking in the country, including protecting minors. But there's long been contention about how laws regarding older teens, those 16 and 17 and still underage, should be written and enforced. I'll explain why in a minute. It's also obvious that teenagers shouldn't be bought and sold for sex. That makes the issue a perennial winner for Republicans, who regularly put up bills to toughen penalties on sex crimes, have them shot down by Democrats, then wage media campaigns that result in headlines such as the recent "Top California Democrats Fight To Protect Purchasing Sex With Kids." Nuance about why some Democrats keep voting down harsher penalties is easily lost and hard to explain when politicians discuss sex trafficking. And Democrats have inflicted this same wound on themselves so many times by following this Republican playbook that the blood won't wash off. The most recent manifestation of this long-running drama has a twist — a freshman Democrat in the Assembly wrote the bill that this year turned into the Republican weapon. Read more: Sex workers are pitted against each other in fight over California's loitering law Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), a former state prosecutor specializing in human trafficking, wrote legislation a few weeks ago meant to close a loophole in a previous law that treated the crime of soliciting a minor for sex differently depending on the age of the minor. A person attempting to purchase sex from a child 15 and under, by current law, is committing a felony. But someone attempting to buy sex from a 16- or 17-year-old is committing a crime that's a "wobbler," chargeable as either a felony or misdemeanor on the first offense, at the prosecutor's discretion. As they have done in past years when Republicans floated the idea, Krell's Democratic colleagues demanded the automatic felony part of her legislation be dropped. Krell agreed, a compromise to keep other parts of the bill alive, including a provision to make it illegal to loiter with the intent to buy sex. But then she backed Republicans when they made a fuss about it last week on the floor of the Assembly, effectively going against her own party. Chaos erupted, followed by insanity. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas stripped Krell's name off the bill and gave it instead to Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), also a former prosecutor, and another Democrat, Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove). Republicans had a field day with press releases, speeches and even began running social media ads accusing Democrats of being soft on sex crimes. Bizarrely, Democrats then began running the same kind of ads against Republicans. Then, on Tuesday, Rivas and Schultz announced a detente with Krell. Buying sex from a 16- or 17-year-old goes back into the bill as an automatic felony — if the buyer is more than three years older than the person being trafficked. A committee will hear the new bill on Wednesday, with Krell's name back on it, and presumably move it forward. There's both a political takeaway and a policy takeaway from all of this. The reason some Democrats say they have blocked the automatic felony in the past is hard to follow. Basically, their argument goes, an 18-year-old could buy Taco Bell or a vape for a younger friend, and that could be considered a felony solicitation if sexual acts ensued. Frankly, I have trouble thinking prosecutors would file these charges, but you never know. The issue that really underlies this perennial fight and which Democrats seem to have a harder time talking about is a philosophical one. Some folks on the progressive end of criminal justice reform, including some survivors of sex trafficking, believe the best way to combat the abuse is to decriminalize sex work, or even legalize it. Decriminalization basically means not enforcing many of the laws currently on the books that lead to sex workers and buyers being arrested — like solicitation. It's not a push to stop arresting those who coerce or force people into trafficking situations. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas stripped Assemblymember Maggy Krell's name off the bill, then restored it after reaching a compromise. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press) The idea is that many sex workers, including younger adults and those in the LGBTQ+ community, are sex workers by choice or necessity, that saddling them with long criminal records preventing them from getting jobs or housing isn't helpful or fair, and going after buyers simply makes their work more dangerous. That outlook goes hand in hand with the years-long push by Democrats to address the over-incarceration of Black and brown people, which has led to the Legislature rarely adding new felonies to the penal code. You can agree or disagree with those viewpoints, but they are worth debating. Our current political mood, with Proposition 36 passed by voters and Trump in the White House, has dramatically shifted though. Sex trafficking is at the center of that shift. Remember when QAnon spread conspiracies about international human smuggling rings, including that online retailer Wayfair was at the heart of a scheme to sell kids though furniture listings? That kind of panic about sex trafficking has become mainstreamed on the right, though the truth is most trafficked kids are sold by someone they know — a parent, a boyfriend, maybe even by another young person being trafficked themselves. Read more: California Democratic lawmakers strike deal on solicitation of minors legislation But tough on crime is back in fashion, and no politician wants to champion decriminalization. I think decriminalization has a lot of pitfalls, but if some Democrats believe it's the solution, it's a policy failure to not talk about it — and it leads voters to misunderstand their position as weak on sex offenders. Krell, who has dedicated her professional life to stopping sex traffickers, strongly believes that buyers need to face more consequences, and she has a point. We can lock up as many sex traffickers as we can find, but as long as buyers feel safe, there will always be a demand. It was a political failure of the Democratic leadership to think she'd be quietly rolled on this issue. Krell is the rare politician who means what she says and says what she means. It likely stung when her name was removed from the bill, but it only increased her will to fight for a change in law she believes in. If anyone comes out of this looking good, it's Krell, who proved herself to be willing to fight even her own party leaders. With the three-year age gap compromise, though, Democrats will likely now show a united front and point to the bill as a success for all involved. But don't be surprised if Republicans run the play again next year. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California Democrats killed, then resurrected, a bill to crack down on buying teens for sex
Are California Democrats soft when it comes to protecting minors from sex trafficking? It's a question that has caused chaos in the state Capitol for more than a week. But really, it's a question Republicans have been asking — and answering with a resounding yes — for years. At the risk of stating the obvious, I'll let you know that California has some of the toughest laws against sex trafficking in the country, including protecting minors. But there's long been contention about how laws regarding older teens, those 16 and 17 and still underage, should be written and enforced. I'll explain why in a minute. It's also obvious that teenagers shouldn't be bought and sold for sex. That makes the issue a perennial winner for Republicans, who regularly put up bills to toughen penalties on sex crimes, have them shot down by Democrats, then wage media campaigns that result in headlines such as the recent 'Top California Democrats Fight To Protect Purchasing Sex With Kids.' Nuance about why some Democrats keep voting down harsher penalties is easily lost and hard to explain when politicians discuss sex trafficking. And Democrats have inflicted this same wound on themselves so many times by following this Republican playbook that the blood won't wash off. Advertisement The most recent manifestation of this long-running drama has a twist — a freshman Democrat in the Assembly wrote the bill that this year turned into the Republican weapon. Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), a former state prosecutor specializing in human trafficking, wrote legislation a few weeks ago meant to close a loophole in a previous law that treated the crime of soliciting a minor for sex differently depending on the age of the minor. A person attempting to purchase sex from a child 15 and under, by current law, is committing a felony. But someone attempting to buy sex from a 16- or 17-year-old is committing a crime that's a 'wobbler,' chargeable as either a felony or misdemeanor on the first offense, at the prosecutor's discretion. As they have done in past years when Republicans floated the idea, Krell's Democratic colleagues demanded the automatic felony part of her legislation be dropped. Krell agreed, a compromise to keep other parts of the bill alive, including a provision to make it illegal to loiter with the intent to buy sex. Advertisement But then she backed Republicans when they made a fuss about it last week on the floor of the Assembly, effectively going against her own party. Chaos erupted, followed by insanity. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas stripped Krell's name off the bill and gave it instead to Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), also a former prosecutor, and another Democrat, Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove). Republicans had a field day with press releases, speeches and even began running social media ads accusing Democrats of being soft on sex crimes. Bizarrely, Democrats then began running the same kind of ads against Republicans. Then, on Tuesday, Rivas and Schultz announced a detente with Krell. Buying sex from a 16- or 17-year-old goes back into the bill as an automatic felony — if the buyer is more than three years older than the person being trafficked. A committee will hear the new bill on Wednesday, with Krell's name back on it, and presumably move it forward. There's both a political takeaway and a policy takeaway from all of this. The reason some Democrats say they have blocked the automatic felony in the past is hard to follow. Basically, their argument goes, an 18-year-old could buy Taco Bell or a vape for a younger friend, and that could be considered a felony solicitation if sexual acts ensued. Frankly, I have trouble thinking prosecutors would file these charges, but you never know. The issue that really underlies this perennial fight and which Democrats seem to have a harder time talking about is a philosophical one. Some folks on the progressive end of criminal justice reform, including some survivors of sex trafficking, believe the best way to combat the abuse is to decriminalize sex work, or even legalize it. Advertisement Decriminalization basically means not enforcing many of the laws currently on the books that lead to sex workers and buyers being arrested — like solicitation. It's not a push to stop arresting those who coerce or force people into trafficking situations. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas stripped Assemblymember Maggy Krell's name off the bill, then restored it after reaching a compromise. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press) The idea is that many sex workers, including younger adults and those in the LGBTQ+ community, are sex workers by choice or necessity, that saddling them with long criminal records preventing them from getting jobs or housing isn't helpful or fair, and going after buyers simply makes their work more dangerous. That outlook goes hand in hand with the years-long push by Democrats to address the over-incarceration of Black and brown people, which has led to the Legislature rarely adding new felonies to the penal code. You can agree or disagree with those viewpoints, but they are worth debating. Our current political mood, with Proposition 36 passed by voters and Trump in the White House, has dramatically shifted though. Sex trafficking is at the center of that shift. Remember when QAnon spread conspiracies about international human smuggling rings, including that online retailer Wayfair was at the heart of a scheme to sell kids though furniture listings? That kind of panic about sex trafficking has become mainstreamed on the right, though the truth is most trafficked kids are sold by someone they know — a parent, a boyfriend, maybe even by another young person being trafficked themselves. Advertisement California California Democratic lawmakers strike deal on solicitation of minors legislation California Democrats announced a deal Monday on a turbulent bill that would make soliciting an older teen a felony for people several years older than they are. But tough on crime is back in fashion, and no politician wants to champion decriminalization. I think decriminalization has a lot of pitfalls, but if some Democrats believe it's the solution, it's a policy failure to not talk about it — and it leads voters to misunderstand their position as weak on sex offenders. Krell, who has dedicated her professional life to stopping sex traffickers, strongly believes that buyers need to face more consequences, and she has a point. We can lock up as many sex traffickers as we can find, but as long as buyers feel safe, there will always be a demand. It was a political failure of the Democratic leadership to think she'd be quietly rolled on this issue. Krell is the rare politician who means what she says and says what she means. It likely stung when her name was removed from the bill, but it only increased her will to fight for a change in law she believes in. If anyone comes out of this looking good, it's Krell, who proved herself to be willing to fight even her own party leaders. With the three-year age gap compromise, though, Democrats will likely now show a united front and point to the bill as a success for all involved. But don't be surprised if Republicans run the play again next year.
Politico
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
California Dems find common ground on sex trafficking after public blow-ups
SACRAMENTO, California — Democratic lawmakers will push to tighten penalties against those who solicit 16- and 17-year-olds for sex after a public spat over a trafficking bill forced lawmakers to adopt a more conservative stance on the issue. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' office told POLITICO exclusively Tuesday morning that he had reached a deal to amend AB 379 so it would allow prosecutors to charge felonies for soliciting older teens. The agreement resulted from negotiations with Public Safety Committee Chair Nick Schultz and Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a former prosecutor and first-term Democratic lawmaker who introduced the original legislation. The updated bill would also prohibit prosecutors from applying felony charges if the accused is within three years of the victim's age — a provision meant to address concerns from progressive Democrats that the bill could unfairly ensnare people closer in age to potential victims. Purchasing sex with a minor would remain illegal, but it would be a lower-level crime. 'I'm looking at this from a prosecutor's standpoint — this bill strengthens California law and gives us the felony hammer to prosecute the creeps that are preying on teenagers,' Krell said in a statement. 'I appreciate everyone's work on this bill, especially the survivors who won't give up.' The fight over whether to add older teen victims to a new soliciting law created an uproar in the Assembly, dividing Democrats and giving campaign fodder to Republicans. Progressive lawmakers opposed the expansion, wary of increasing criminal penalties; some argued it would allow parents upset about LGBTQ and interracial relationships to weaponize the law. Krell fanned the flames last week as she joined with Republicans to force an Assembly floor vote to reinstate the portion of the bill applying to 16- and 17-year-old victims that had previously been removed. This led Rivas to take Krell's name off the legislation. Democrats then voted to add amendments promising to add unspecified protections for 16- and 17-year-olds to the bill. The floor snafu allowed a sex-trafficking discussion that gave Republicans carte blanche to hit Democrats on the issue — which has long been a losing one for the party. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will consider the changes Wednesday. 'I am grateful for the leadership of Speaker Rivas, Assemblymember Nguyen and others who have worked tirelessly the last few days to secure a Democratic solution that strengthens California's existing laws and penalties,' Schultz said in a statement.
