CA: Ballot Initiative Would Expand Definition of Violent Felony

The November 2020 ballot in California will include an initiative that would significantly weaken three recent criminal justice reform measures — AB 109, Prop. 47 and Prop. 57. Included in the ballot initiative is a major change to the definition of the term “violent felony,” which is used for sentencing and other purposes.

Specifically, the California Criminal Sentencing, Parole and DNA Collection Initiative would expand the total number of violent felonies from 27 to 51. In addition, the ballot initiative would expand the definition of violent felony to include any felony that requires lifetime registration.

“If this ballot initiative is passed, all registrants assigned to Tier 3 of the new Tiered Registry Law could be considered violent felons,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “That would include individuals convicted of non-contact offenses such as possession of unlawful images.”

The author of the ballot initiative is Assemblyman Jim Cooper, who is a former member of the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department for 30 years. The ballot initiative is supported by several law enforcement organizations, including the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles Police Protective League Issues PAC. Each of those organizations has contributed $200,000 to $2,000,000. The ballot initiative is also supported by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

“We must oppose this ballot initiative because it could result in significant harm to current and future registrants,” stated Bellucci. “The best way to oppose this ballot initiative is to vote against it as well as to encourage members of our families and our friends to vote against it.”

According to government documents, the ACLU is formally opposed to this ballot initiative and has donated $200,000 to fight it. In addition, two individuals are formally opposed to the initiative and each of those individuals has donated $250,000.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown has publicly stated his opposition to the ballot initiative which he describes as the “latest scare tactic on criminal justice reform.” The Gov. Brown’s Ballot Measure Initiative group has donated $60,000 to oppose the ballot measure.

Ballot Initiative – Nov 2020

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I could be wrong, but looking online it looks like Jim Cooper is up for re-election in Nov also. If you research him on the internet, it looks like he’s pissed off A LOT of people. There are even print out-able PDFs on some civil liberties websites opposing him. I think we have to get moving to turn the tide against him for good. Los Angeles voted overwhelmingly for Measure R, I believe partially because of the support of celebs who believe in Criminal Justice Reform. I think we can get the word out there that this guy is trying to ruin all the efforts CA has already put in place.

This is just the beginning. This “tiered registry” will allow the legislature to impose all kinds of “civil penalties” on each of the three tiers (mostly at Tier 3) without the Ex Post Facto constitutional protection. We’re already seeing people at risk at being placed onto the Megan’s Law website because of this dumb law.

Wait until they increase reporting requirements like most other states to twice a year or four times a year. Then watch how our Courts will interpret the “petitioning” process for the Tier 1’s and Tier 2’s that qualify to hopefully get off. Then watch how these risk-based tools are perverted to exaggerate people’s danger.

This is what people were warning about from the beginning. I am truly worried about the tiered registry law and I hope that a battle is fought, much like Michigan, to declare all of its injustices and unfairness as unconstitutional.

Folks, please stop taking your frustrations toward the tiered registry out on Janice and ACSOL. Many of the comments seem to imply that Janice and ACSOL are happy with this current iteration of the tiered registry. However, nothing could be further from the truth! Janice and ACSOL are continuing to fight for an “offramp” from the registry for ALL registrants. In their current form, the tier assignments are so screwed up that there is actually a “wobbler” offense against a 14 or 15 y/o designated as a Tier 3 when a similar offense that is a straight felony against persons under 14 y/o is a Tier 2!!! Yes, things are screwed up. Yes, Janice and ACSOL are aware of these things. NO, these screw-ups are not their fault!
To get a better narrative about what Janice and ACSOL are doing, each of you owes it to yourself to listen to the telephone conference recordings that are held every few months. You can find these recordings on the ACSOL website at: https://all4consolaws.org/acsol-conference-calls/
You can stream them right from that page via your browser, or you can download them onto your computer like a podcast. For me, these recordings are like a “Voice of Hope” because they offer a lot of detail about what is being done by Janice and team. You cannot get this kind of insight just by reading the daily headlines that are posted on this site. Listen to what Janice and Chance have to say, and you will know they are fighting for ALL of us!
Nobody is being thrown under the bus by ACSOL. If Janice and ACSOL had their way, the registry would be gone. Period.

After reading thru all these posts a few times it occurs to me that this could be the thing that makes the whole thing collapse on itself. I agree, try to stay positive the governor would still have to sign it and I have confidence Brown is in Newsom’s ear about this. I tend to believe there are many on the assembly that think this is bs but can’t openly say it but will fight it quietly. We’ve all seen many bad laws go down don’t let this affect you mentally keep the faith. I really could give a shit what they want to label me. I know who I am and so does my family and friends. Fuck them.

The most important take away from all this is to VOTE against this ballot measure! Mount your own campaign, no matter how big or small, to do the same.

I maybe on lifetime supervised release with a Federal CP conviction but I’m registered to vote. I voted against Jackie Lacey many days ago. That is my own little “GTFO public office” to her! Although she looks like she’s still clinging on to her office I will be there next election to vote against her again!

As for this ballot measure I will be there in November with my friends and family to vote against it. I go to Group every week and I will inform the other Registrants to do the same.

I think on my end I can get about 20 people to vote against this ballot.

What about you guys? Are you up for the challenge? Each of us is a potential vector for change. Freedom is not for free! Freedom is fought for! Each of us 100,000+ Registrants carry a bit of voting power that combined can change the course of law!

Change doesn’t just happen!

Change is made by us!

What is fraud mean?

fraud(Noun) Any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain. fraud(Noun) The assumption of a false identity to such deceptive end. fraud(Noun) A person who performs any such trick. fraud(Verb) To defraud.

The government are engaging in fraud, which, should be targeted in court.

First CP was begrudgingly moved from T1 to T3 as a bargaining chip for this new law.

Now they want to make those that possess CP a so-called “violent felon.”

Next they’ll want to make it criminal sexual conduct (CSC).

“Worse than rape” is their desired end game it seems.

How did this initiative already end up on the November ballot in March? Isn’t there a substantial process required for stuff like this to make it onto the ballot? Can it be stopped from ever making it to the ballot in the first place?

The gist will always be that the supporters of the registry will enjoy priority in all of their efforts while those fighting it are given the cold shoulder and told to wait in line.

Much respect to each of you on here and for all of your opinions, but in the end all the complaints won’t move the cause an inch. Keep the posts short, venting frustrations is just repeating what’s already on everyone else’s mind. You gotta get smart and tackle the issues in the right way. If it has to be a long fight, fine. You have to stay committed to it. Everyone here is fighting the same battle eventually, some have harder battles than others but ALL have lost in some way.

Ok, we have been down this road before my friends! Lets play the game the way they do!
so first things first: WHERE IN THIS PROPOSITION IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
LETS WORKED TOGETHER AND DO OUR RESEARCH AND FIND THE FLAW, THEN EXPOSE IT ON CA RSOL,
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS STUPID PROP. STOPPED BEFORE IT BECOMES ACTIVE!
because we all know this proposition will pass!!!! we have defeated them before lets do it again.:)

While I do not support this, the language (once you get into the meat and potatoes) states:
For purposes of early release or parole consideration
under the authority of Section 32 of Article I of the Constitution, Sections 12838.4 and 12838.5 of the Government
Code, Sections 3000.1, 3041.5, 3041.7, 3052, 5000, 5054,
5055, 5076.2 of this Code and the rulemaking authority
granted by Section 5058 of this Code, the following shall
be defned as “violent felony offenses”:

Sounds like just for the purpose of those seeking early release or parole. Obviously, it will be used for more. When they sell this bill, they keep talking about reoffenders. Its all about bringing fear as we all know. 290 is on there and a lot of us do not reoffended but yet put into the same category as those who do when it comes to theft, violence, etc.

It states:
A. Prevent Early Release of Violent Felons
1. Protecting every person in our state, including our
most vulnerable children, from violent crime is of the
utmost importance. Murderers, rapists, child molesters
and other violent criminals should not be released early
from prison

I guess those 290s are all child molesters since it is in the text that all 290 for life will be considered violent felony.

States
These changes allowed
individuals convicted of sex traffcking of children, rape
of an unconscious person, felony assault with a deadly
weapon, battery on a police offcer or frefghter, and
felony domestic violence to be considered “non-violent
offenders.”
4. As a result, these so-called “non-violent” offenders
are eligible for early release from prison after serving
only a fraction of the sentence ordered by a judge.

So again, all 290s are involved in sex trafficking of minors, rapist?

“Individuals who repeatedly steal often do so to
support their drug habit. Recent changes to California law
have reduced judges’ ability to order individuals convicted
of repeated theft crimes into effective drug treatment
programs.”

Again, under the same umbrella as those who continually commit crime over and over again. Where is their registry then if this for public safety?

They are trying to target repeat offenders while throwing all 290s under the bus as well. This seems to be just for parole but I can see it getting worse.
When as something worked in our favor?

Those who are suggesting that a lot of celebrities will be affected, it may not as it only deals with those seeking early release or parole.

IF you want to read the wording:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020)

This really cements the deal for me to not move back to my home state of California. I guess I’d be considered a violent felon for looking at dirty pictures on my computer. Ha!Ha! Well at least I wouldn’t have had to serve prison time if my offense occured in Cali instead of this cesspool of Wisconsin but still, violent felon for pictures? Geesh.

I think part of the sentencing was a suspended sentence to be honest. I was such a nervous wreck, i honestly dont remember.

Absolutely! Oregon is my 2nd choice but I plan to go to Massachusetts because I have relatives there, they don’t publically list and their cost of housing (believe it or not) is far lower in the western (Birkshire Mountains) part of the state than most places in Oregon and California. It’s just the Boston area and eastern Mass that have insane housing prices.
But Oregon is a beautiful place with nice people. When I was a skinny black kid in my 20s, I left Inglewood and moved up to Salem for the summer of 1990. The people were wonderful, the cost of living was cheap and fresh fruit was plentiful. But I know Oregon has changed dramatically since then, especially cost of living. But I still consider living in places like Salem, Ashland, even Portland. Oregon is still a great place although many people out there still accuse us of “Californiating” the state.

I have been researching this, and I really believe this if passed will eventually find it’s way to the California Supreme Court, where it is likely to be found unconstitutional. This law if passed will effectively without due process, employ a sentencing enhancement that did not exist when we were sentenced.

Yes, and I was specifically declared non-violent by the judge during re-sentencing hearing in order to get my half time. What are they going to revoke my status, call me a violent offender and send me back to the pen to do the other 35%, the rest of the 85% for violent offenses? Or are they just going to try and use this prospectively in order to try and bypass the constitutionality of it like they have with everything else. As long as it is not retroactive its all cool, no one will stand up if its not retro you know.