Janice’s Journal: Jessica’s Law Authors Attempt to Overturn CA Supreme Court Decision

Sharon Runner is at it again.  She is trying to overturn the recent CA Supreme Court decision that declared unconstitutional residency restrictions as applied to parolees in San Diego.

Runner is attempting to do this through the “gut and amend” process by completely rewriting Senate Bill (SB) 54.  In its current form, SB 54 would create a state law that prohibits most registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children regularly gather as well as authorize municipal jurisdictions to pass even more stringent residency restrictions Sharon Runner is best known for her “leadership” in Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”) which was significantly limited by the recent CA Supreme Court decision.  Jessica’s Law may be Sharon Runner’s only claim to fame which may be why she cannot remain silent.
In addition, Senator Sharon Runner’s husband, George Runner, cannot remain silent regarding the Supreme Court’s decision and has used state resources to voice his opinions.

George Runner — a former state legislator and current member of the Board of Equalization (BOE) — has posted the following criticism of the Court’s decision in a press release on the BOE website:  “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court over the will of the people.”  In the same press release, George Runner identifies himself as “Jessica’s Law author” as well as Vice Chair of the BOE.

George Runner also criticized a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to apply the Supreme Court’s decision statewide in a second press release posted on the BOE website.  In that press release, he stated that “Jessica’s Law authors George and Sharon Runner….were disappointed by the Corrections Department’s sweeping decision…..”

One can only wonder why or whether the BOE, a state agency dedicated to taxpayer issues, cares about a public safety issue, that is, the application of residency restrictions to registered citizens.  One can also wonder whether the use of the BOE website to post press releases on this topic is a wise and lawful use of BOE resources.

As for SB 54, the bill has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it will be assigned to one or more Senate committees for further consideration.  When that bill is heard, California RSOL will be sure to testify against it.

By Janice Bellucci

Read all of Janice’s Journal

Related posts

Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What’s kind of bizarre about this entire discussion, and linking it to the state Supreme Court decision, is that Jessica’s Law was not decided by the high court. That decision did nothing to “gut” Jessica’s Law.

The court decided the other Legislature-created statute pertaining only to parolees, not to other registrants. That law was passed by the Legislature in hope of diminishing the push for more, for Jessica’s Law. But the Runners took Jessica’s Law to a ballot measure anyway, and it was passed, and it applies to all registrants, not only to parolees.

The high court’s ruling in San Diego was only pertinent to those on parole. Yes, the state’s decision to extend it across the state is more, but that still is applicable only to those on parole.

The Runners now seem to fear — accurately — that the logic will be expanded either by the court or the lawmakers to presence restrictions against all registrants. So they are making a preemtive strike.

So this bill, if passed would only apply to registrants, who’s convictions are in penal code 667.81?

Great this is going to my weekly letters to my local Law maker letting them know that I think of runner posting on boe.

I meant penal code 667.61! Does anyone know the answer?

I think the press release may have been removed. I looked and couldn’t find it.