A controversial public safety bill failed in the Assembly over the weekend, without a vote from either of the Santa Clarita Valley’s two state lawmakers whose districts cover most of the SCV.
Assembly Bill 1231 was seen as a criminal-justice reform bill that would have given wider latitude for judges to grant diversionary programs — substance-abuse classes for narcotics offenses or anger-management for less-serious assaults.
The bill passed in the state Senate on Friday 21-16, with three legislators, including Suzette Martinez Valladares, R-Acton, having “no vote recorded.”
It then failed in the Assembly, 34-27, the following day, just ahead of the weekend’s deadline for each house to pass bills for the current session. There were 19 members of the Assembly with “no vote recorded,” including Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo, D-Chatsworth.
Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, voted no on the bill. Lackey’s district includes some eastern portions of the SCV.
The former longtime California Highway Patrol officer, Lackey supported Proposition 36 and criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom in May for a revised budget that Lackey said didn’t financially support the public safety reforms voters wanted.
Both Valladares and Schiavo expressed opposition to the bill prior to the weekend vote.
Valladares issued a statement as part of the Senate Republican caucus opposed to the bill when the Legislature’s analysis was released Sept. 7.
“If Prop. 36 moved us two steps forward on public safety, AB 1231 moves us right back by creating a pinky promise system for felons,” Martinez Valladares wrote in a news release that day, issued by California Senate Republicans. “How can this Legislature say it’s serious about crime if it continues to take away consequences?”
Schiavo’s spokesman, Furkan Yalcin, issued a prepared statement on Schiavo’s behalf Tuesday in response to the questions about the bill.
“I did not support AB 1231, along with colleagues across the aisle, because I stand firmly with law enforcement and have constituents who have raised serious concerns about the bill’s impact on public safety,” Schiavo’s statement said, referring to objections over the proposed expansion of diversion programs for a number of crimes.
Schiavo had already previously had a “no vote recorded” on the bill during its initial vote in the Assembly.
Neither Schiavo nor Valladares were available by phone Tuesday to discuss the votes. When contacted by The Signal, both responded through their respective communication directors.
Ashley Giovannettone, communications director for Martinez Valladares, wrote in a text message: “(Martinez Valladares) fully opposed AB 1231. The Democrats took up the bill when she was off the floor (Friday). It also became clear by the end of the week it would fail in Assembly,” Giovannettone wrote, adding Martinez Valladares also had a veto letter she was ready to send to Newsom, if the bill had made it to his desk.
When asked the same question, Yalcin shared the following statement via text on Schiavo’s behalf: “The bill needed 41 aye votes to pass, and so an NVR from myself and my Republican and Democrat colleagues has the same effect as a ‘no,’” she said. “I recognize the author has worked with the opposition in good faith, but there is still more work to be done to address concerns.”
A recent CalMatters analysis of AB 1231 included the following:
“The bill would authorize the court to consider information from, among others, the prosecutor and the defense in determining whether or not to grant diversion and would prohibit a court from granting diversion unless it finds that the diversion plan mitigates any unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and that the defendant is likely to benefit from the services provided in the diversion plan. The bill would authorize a court to consider reinstating criminal proceedings in certain circumstances, such as the commission of a misdemeanor committed while the defendant is receiving pretrial diversion services that shows a propensity for violence, among others.”
Supporters said it gave more local control to judges in deciding defendants’ sentencing.
Opponents of the measure say it flies in the face of Proposition 36, which just over 68% of voters approved in November.
“More specifically, this grants diversion for all felonies subject to the realignment law (i.e., most drug and property offenses) and any alternate felony/misdemeanor (‘wobbler’) offenses with an alternate state prison term,” according to a report on the bill’s impacts from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Proposition 36 made “key changes” to the punishments for theft and drug crimes, according to an LAO analysis. It increased the punishments but also created a new treatment-focused court process for some drug-possession crimes.
According to the analysis, these programs are expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually, figures expected to fluctuate significantly based on how local prosecutors and judges apply the law.
The major concern for opponents wasn’t the cost, it was the proposal for “a drastic expansion of court-ordered diversion which, for the most part, historically has been limited to minor/misdemeanor crimes or instances where an individual has extenuating circumstances such as an established mental health issue,” according to the LAO.