In a break from other Democrats, Newsom says soliciting older minors for sex should be a felony
- Share via
- The governor spoke out against changes to legislation that struck a provision from a bill that would have made it a potential felony to solicit 16- or 17-year-olds for sex in California.
Democrats in the California Legislature drew national attention this week when they refused to advance legislation that sought to increase the punishment to a potential felony for soliciting a 16- or 17-year-old for sex, inspiring a rare public rebuke from Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The move by lawmakers to strip the felony charge from the bill created a firestorm of criticism on social media and raised questions about priorities of lawmakers elected to the California Statehouse. To some, the refusal to stiffen the penalty became a glaring example of policymakers in the Golden State leaning too progressive after Republicans exploited the party’s positions on social issues in the presidential election.
“The majority clearly remains out of touch with mainstream California,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant, about Democrats in the Legislature. “They’re creating a burden for their party nationally.”
Current law allows the offense of soliciting a minor under the age of 16 for sex to be punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony on the first offense, which is known as a felony “wobbler,” and as a felony on subsequent offenses. State law also allows felony penalties for sex trafficking a minor under age 18.
AB 379 sought to build on existing state law by extending the “wobbler” felony charge to include solicitation of 16- and 17- year-olds on the first offense and a felony on subsequent offenses. The legislation also made it a misdemeanor to loiter with the intent to buy sex.
But on Tuesday, Democrats threatened to hold the legislation unless Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who introduced the bill, agreed to withdraw the felony charges for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds. The bill moved forward without the increased punishment for soliciting older teens, which prompted Newsom to intervene and voice his support for the original legislation.
It’s unusual for Newsom to take a position before a bill reaches his desk, but the Democratic governor has interjected in the legislative process a few times to support increasing penalties for sex crimes against minors, opposing members of his own party.
“The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim’s age,” Newsom said in a statement. “Full stop.”
Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield is one of the Democratic-majority Legislature’s most conservative members, giving her little power, but she has passed significant bills to combat sex trafficking.
Krell said the goal of the legislation is to address human trafficking and give police better tools to target people who are buying victims.
She said a few days before the hearing, staff members working for the public safety committee led by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) told her that the bill would be held unless she agreed to the changes.
“I really wanted this bill to be heard,” said Krell, a former criminal prosecutor and deputy attorney general. “The idea that the bill would be killed without any conversation, that was something I could not accept and so in order to get a hearing and to move the other pieces of the bill forward, I took the amendment, although I voiced my displeasure with it the entire time.”
In an interview, Schultz said it’s already a felony in California to contact a minor to commit a sexual act. When asked why there was opposition to Krell’s bill if a similar charge is already a felony, he pointed to concerns expressed during the hearing.
Jess Torres, a survivor of child trafficking, testified against the legislation.
“This bill will only escalate violence against survivors because persons who are trafficked in commercial sex are harmed when they operate in a criminalized environment,” Torres said. “When buyers believe they are taking on greater risk, they often become more demanding, and that pressure frequently becomes compromising.”
Youth advocates were concerned that allowing felony charges for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds could be used by parents to target older teens involved in LGBTQ or interracial relationships that families object to, said Leigh LaChapelle with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking, which opposed the bill.
Despite the concerns, Krell said she expected her colleagues to approve the bill when she introduced it this year.
“I thought we would do the right thing,” Krell said. “I want us to do the right thing.”
A key panel passed the bill two days after killing it, reviving what had been a bipartisan effort to crack down on people who repeatedly traffic children.
Republicans spoke against the amendment to Krell’s bill during the hearing that removed the felony charge for soliciting older teens.
“These are girls, and these are people that our society should be doing everything they can to protect,” Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) said during the hearing. “So why are we protecting the predator?”
The issue of increasing penalties for trafficking and soliciting minors has become a point of contention between Newsom and some Democrats in the state Legislature.
After rejecting legislation by Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) to stiffen the penalty for sex trafficking minors in 2023, Democrats at the Capitol reversed course when the bill made headlines and Newsom intervened. The governor also supported Grove’s efforts last year to allow felony charges for soliciting anyone under age 16.
Schultz said the state should take more time to assess that existing law before adopting felony charges for soliciting older teens. Lawmakers will hold an informational hearing on the topic in the fall.
“I don’t have any opposition to the premise of the problem of what Assemblymember Krell is trying to solve,” Schultz said. “And I think that people should expect that this committee will follow through on its word, that we will look at this issue and we will come back with a better solution.”
Andrew Acosta, a Democratic consultant, said the drama around Krell’s bill is an example of poor politics by Democrats in California, which he blamed on the reality that most lawmakers represent safe blue districts and don’t need to have tough conversations about policies with people who hold other viewpoints.
He said appearing unaligned with the public doesn’t help Democrats nationally and could eventually hurt the few senators and Assembly members vying for seats in contested districts in the future.
“The jokes kind of write themselves, and it’s a problem for us,” Acosta said. “Is it going to mean that we’re going to have a Republican governor next cycle? I don’t know about that, but it definitely could cause some problems for people in a primary next year or in a general election, depending on the race and the district.”
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
