![How did a shoplifting bill pass in California’s liberal Assembly despite opposition from most Democrats? How did a shoplifting bill pass in California’s liberal Assembly despite opposition from most Democrats?](https://i3.wp.com/cdn.kpbs.org/dims4/default/7c46fb5/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2000x1050+0+142/resize/1200x630!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fkpbs-brightspot.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fec%2F2a%2F837f3b314be78fca427ab57619a8%2Fshoplifting1.jpg&w=1200&resize=1200,0&ssl=1)
Assemblyman Ash Kalra did something exceptional last week.
He was the only lawmaker to vote “no” on controversial legislation, while nearly half of the state Assembly’s 80 members (and most Democrats) did not vote.
The bill, which would make it easier to arrest shoplifters, is a recent example of a pattern CalMatters revealed in April in which lawmakers dodge votes to avoid offending the bill’s supporters or to expunge a record of their opposition on controversial issues.
Assembly Bill 1990 passed 44-1 last week with 35 lawmakers not casting votes, including 32 of the 62 Democrats and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. Some of those who did not vote had excused absences, but the Legislature’s online registry does not distinguish between absence, abstention or non-voting.
The bill would allow police to make a warrantless larceny arrest, even if they did not witness the crime. Los Angeles Assemblywoman Wendy Carillo, who authored the bill along with five Democratic and two Republican co-sponsors, said it is “in response to the alarming escalation of organized retail theft,” which has become a hot-button political issue.
But progressive Democrats, wary of rising incarceration rates for misdemeanors, were uncomfortable with the bill.
“Let’s be clear: AB 1990 will not stop retail theft,” Assemblywoman Tina McKinnor, D-Inglewood, told her colleagues. “AB 1990 will increase the unnecessary harassment, detention, arrest and mass incarceration of Black and Brown Californians.”
He concluded his speech: “I ask everyone to vote ‘no’ on AB 1990.”
McKinnor, however, did not vote on the bill.
His office did not respond to CalMatters’ request for an explanation as to why he did not vote despite his clear opposition.
Kalra, of San Jose, also did not respond to a request from CalMatters to explain why he cast the only “no” vote.
But Kalra has long been an advocate for progressive causes. He is a former deputy public defender and former chair of the Legislature’s Progressive Caucus. He has advocated for legislation that seeks to end systematic racism in the justice system.
For a time, it looked like Kalra wasn’t going to be the only Democrat voting “no” on AB 1990.
Fellow Democrat Rick Chavez Zbur, an Assemblyman from Los Angeles, was also listed as a “no” voter, according to voting roll video captured by CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.
But Zbur, who chairs the Assembly Democratic Caucus, changed his vote after the bill passed so that he was formally listed as a non-voter. In the Assembly, members can change their vote on a bill after the hearing has concluded, as long as it does not change the final result.
When asked to explain why she changed her vote, her spokesperson, Vienna Montague, said in an email that Zbur “has no comment at this time.”
While AB 1990 survived and made it to the Senate, despite many lawmakers not voting, other bills have not fared as well.
Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes rather than lawmakers voting “no.” So far this year, the Digital Democracy database indicates that at least 17 bills have died because lawmakers refused to vote.
Meanwhile, Senate and Assembly leaders have repeatedly refused to answer CalMatters’ questions about whether the Legislature’s voting rules should change.
Politicians may think that not voting helps their political careers in the long run because they believe it will be harder for someone to use a controversial “no” against them in a campaign ad, said Thad Kousser, a former legislative staffer. from California who is now a professor of political science at UC San Diego. But he says that’s shortsighted. He said any smart political operative can just as easily say they “did not support this bill” in an ad.
Kousser said if lawmakers really have strong feelings against a bill, they’re better off voting “no.”
“Politicians’ political interests are probably best served by taking the stance that best fits their values and explaining it to voters,” Kousser said.
Not voting, he said, is “just another way of saying, ‘I didn’t represent you on this bill.’ “
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.