Could California keep convicted child predators eligible for public office?

California Senator Scott Wiener is seeking to amend the state's penal code through California Assembly Bill (AB) 2691, a bill meant to prohibit anyone convicted of a felony “involving sexual assault or human trafficking” from holding office. But the amendments added by Planned Parenthood ally Senator Wiener “create exemptions” for serious offenses committed against minors that would not “automatically trigger” a ban against someone running for office. 

Critics like pro-family advocacy group the California Family Council believe Wiener’s amendments would allow child predators convicted of felonies to run for public office, despite their crimes.

The Details: 

The amendments separate sexual offenses committed against adults from those committed against children; as written, they would recognize violations against adults but not children. 

The amendments read (emphases added):

(3) (A) “Sexual assault” means a violation of Section 261, 286, 287, 288, 288.5, or 289 of, or former Section 288a or 289.5 of, the Penal Code. [offenses against adults]

(B) “Sexual assault” does not include a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 of the Penal Code. [denies offenses committed against children] 

The codes emphasized above that Weiner is seeking to remove with his amendment include: 

• Sodomy against a minor - Section 286, subdivision (b) - “any person who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.” 

• Oral copulation against a minor - Section 287, subdivision (b) - “any person who participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.”

• Sexual penetration of a minor - Section 289, subdivisions (h) or (i) - (h) - “any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.” (i) - “any person over 21 years of age who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.”

Wiener's website bio states that he:

... is a past Chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus and the Senate Budget and Housing Committees... served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, representing the district previously represented by Harvey Milk.... He also served in a number of community leadership roles, including co-chair of the San Francisco LGBT Community Center and on the national Board of Directors of the Human Rights Campaign. 

Zoom In:

During the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendment Committee hearing held on June 30, California Family Council President Greg Burt testified against the bill, stating: 

"When we read the… amendment to AB 2691, our honest reaction was that it could not be real. We assumed we misread it. We sat in our office and tried to imagine how anyone could stand up and defend it.

So I’m here today genuinely hoping [you] will tell us why crimes against children are being carved out of this bill…

Barring people convicted of felony sexual assault and human trafficking from holding public office is good policy. We want to support the bill. But... we were told this committee chair [Wiener] demanded exempt convictions for felony sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration against children….

Here is where the bill now stands: a person convicted of felony sexual assault against an adult would be barred from public office. A person convicted of the same act against a minor would not be." 

No rationale offered

In other words, Burt asserts, a perpetrator who assaulted an adult is disqualified from running for office, but if that offense is against a child, the perpetrator “may run for school board.”

Burt further claimed that “no one has offered a rationale,” and points out that the “Committee’s own analysis does not offer one.” 

“Other states put children first… but this amendment puts California in the opposite direction. It protects child victims least exactly where the protection is needed most,” Burt concluded. 

Senator and Vice-chairman of the Committee Steven Choi stated that until the amendments were added, he was a “strong supporter” of the bill. But with the amendments that Choi stated explicitly allow for “pedophiles and child groomers” to hold elected office, he “cannot in good conscience support the bill.”  

“I cannot understand why these exclusions have been made,” Choi stated.  

The author of the bill — a former board member of Planned Parenthood Central Coast Action Fund — Senator Dawn Addis, was directly asked by Senator Choi why the amendments, which contradict the bill's original intention (to protect the general public from sexual predators from obtaining positions of authority) was allowed. 

Addis’ response did not address the concerns but defaulted to boasting that the bill was the “first in the nation” of its kind.  

Chairman Wiener called opposition to the bill nothing more than “political cynicism," claiming that such voices are upset that the bill “didn’t include enough crimes.” Wiener suggested that those with concerns about the amendment “could introduce whatever bill you want to introduce in the future” to address the concerns, aimed at protecting children from sexual predators holding positions of power.   

This is a nonsensical argument. Instead it should be asked why these specific offenses, which were included in the original text of the legislation, were intentionally removed in the first place. 

AB 2691 passed out of the committee and is expected to move to the California Senate floor. 

Another bill derailed

During the same committee hearing, AB 2753, a bill aiming to prevent persons on the registered sex offenders list from running for elected office, was considered.

Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria shared that this particular bill was written to prohibit scenarios recently experienced in the city of Fresno (in her district and where Soria previously served as a city councilmember) after a registered sex offender, convicted of possession of child sex abuse materials, attempted to run for city council.

“Our community was shocked and outraged that a registered sex offender could run for office,” Soria stated.

Under Wiener’s leadership, an amendment was added to this bill as well, to limit restrictions to those on the register under “tier 3,” or those mandated to remain on the sex offender registry for their lifetime. 

Wiener urged the Committee to vote against AB 2753, stating that in 2017, “1 in 400 Californians” were on the sex offender registry. Wiener stated that the sex offender registry “is not a form of punishment” but is a “tool for law enforcement to be able to monitor people who may potentially cause a risk.” 

During the hearing, Assemblywoman Soria explained why she rejected Wiener's amendment, stating: 

"The bill that is in front of us does not create any new crimes. It does not expand the sex offender registry, nor does it change who must register…. It simply says that if California currently requires someone to register as a sex offender, they should not be entrusted with the honor of elected office…

My community and I feel very strongly about these individuals seeking to run for elected office and we do believe that we must draw the line there."

However, following Senator Wiener's recommendation, AB 2753 failed to advance.    

The Bottom Line:

Encouraging local residents to get involved, the California Family Council stated, “California deserves laws that protect children—not loopholes that raise serious questions about who can hold public office.”