Which City Council Member Changed Their Vote On Sex Offender Law?

On Aug. 1, the San Diego City Council voted to uphold a city ordinance that restricts where registered sex offenders can live. It did so against the advice of the city attorney, who warned the council the ordinance was unconstitutional and made the city vulnerable to litigation. Full Article

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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

The two council members with Latino surnames ought to open their eyes and look at the Megan’s Law site for the San Diego area. By far the greatest number of surnames of people on the registry are Latino. These registrants will not find much employment because of that status, thereby driving down employment in the Latino community and also forcing more Latinos into industrial areas to avoid the residency restrictions. For what? A mythical solution. If they feel sexual abuse is a particular problem in the community then there are other solutions. Try giving people employment and stability, that has been suggested by the experts that treat sexual offenders. Try also some sort of hotline or avenue where people can get mental help before things get illegal. I remember one Latino in my group therapy that wasn’t charged with anything, but came because his feelings and concerns had him thinking those feelings may lead to an offense. He was especially brave and rare, but with a safety net for coming out, maybe more will seek help and not isolation. That is true for others of any race or ethnicity. How much better would the community be if we stopped funding law enforcement going on witch hunts and instead fund programs that work.

Listen to the interview. The interviewer just backs Chris Ward into a corner with irrefutable evidence and Chris Ward can do nothing but double talk and evade the question. He hasn’t even read the Supreme Court ruling which is based on factual data. Council member Chris Ward proves himself to be totally inept and knows the city is going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in law suits, and doesn’t care. What is his agenda???

The board wrote in a report released one month before the ordinance’s passage: “Research studies over the past two decades have consistently indicated that recidivism rates for sex offenders are, in reality, lower than the re-offense rates for most other types of offenders.”

Whoa! This is in respect to the Child Protection act of 2008. It is now 2017. That’s nearly three decades worth of research work from CASOMB that depicts the low recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than the re-offense rates for most other types of offenders! Also, with the newer and more precise way of categorizing what’s a re-offense (failure to register used to be considered a re-offense), the recidivism rates are below 1%.

About THREE DECADES worth of research from an official California research group on sex offenders, CASOMB, has facts. The registry isn’t needed, but like this SD group and like the Sheriff from Florida banning SO’s from safe havens due to a disastrous hurricane, those peoples will continue to inflict punishment.

The recidivism rates are low for three decades, but the registry has grown to over 100,000. Something isn’t making sense. Also, why isn’t the registry shrinking if the recidivism rates are low? Again, something doesn’t make sense. Ya know… like treating free people unequally to fend for themselves in a hurricane.

Janice should use this example in her attempt to re-produce the Colorado suit in California.
Federal Judge Richard Matsch has found that to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. He wrote that the public has been given the “power to inflict punishments beyond those imposed through the court.”

The courts have said the ordinances are unconstitutional, but SD doesn’t care. In fact, I would gather all of the quotes of those council members who “reluctantly accepted to repeal ordinances”. That proves the public’s disdain of sex offenders even in light of Constitutionality. This is pushing towards a parallel to Jim Crow type laws where people are forced to accept the Constitutional protection of others.

The city pays law firms with taxpayer money. It is not “in-house” council. The law firms probably “give back” or “thanks” certain city council members for the “work”. Said council members don’t care if they loose the case. It’s a win/win for them!! They tried and they lost so that doesn’t look so bad to the tax payers; and I already told you about the other “win” for you know who.

Another positive article in support of our cause and side. I don’t care how smart or stupid a councilman looks (ok, I may like that he looks stupid), as long as the cold, hard facts and recidivism information is broadcast. The truth is coming out, whether they like it or not!

@come on

Not completely true. Many entities have general counsel in-house as full time legal counsel. Many entities who don’t, do farm the work out to legal entities to advise and guide as needed or even investigate if required. It really go both ways.

As for your win/win, yes, that is true for the councilperson. They win for trying if they lost and win if they truly win.

Well; they had better get the check ready for Janice. They’ve got a real information spanking coming. The information being they can’t do what they are doing because the state occupies the field. Ignorance of the facts should not be an excuse for stupidity. And is a axiom that ignorance is a choice.